:: Re: [DNG] [announce] s6-rc, a s6-ba…
トップ ページ
このメッセージを削除
このメッセージに返信
著者: Simon Hobson
日付:  
To: dng@lists.dyne.org
題目: Re: [DNG] [announce] s6-rc, a s6-based service manager for Unix systems
Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:

> ... or the fact that apache on the box I'm presently
> using 'depends' on bind and syslog.


Well in the general case*, those are not unreasonable dependencies. In the general case*, Apache needs** DNS resolution during startup, and it rather makes sense** if it's able to log stuff while it's starting up.

* And all software builds/packaging is a compromise. The package needs to support the general case, and a wide variety of not quite so general use cases. If your use case doesn't have any dependency between Apache and DNS then you are free to remove that - I know it's not exactly hard to do with Sysinit.

** Again, need is a relative term.
In my experience, Apache will start "just fine" without DNS (but it does depend a little on your config), but not having DNS may mean it can't determine some values which are good for it to have. You can remove that dependency if it's not applicable to you - but for some it's "important" and it makes sense for the default to work for "most people".
It doesn't absolutely need to use syslog, and it doesn't absolutely need to log stuff during startup - but in the general case it's going to cause less complaints if it's able to log stuff using syslog while starting up - if you're not bothered then you can easily change that too.


The thing is, it really does not matter what decision you make - there will be a vocal minority for whom that is "completely wrong, how on earth could you do that". I've witnessed 'discussions' where someone building low footprint systems complain that (in that case, I think it was Debian) installed loads of stuff they didn't want by default, and that packages weren't modular enough to allow them to leave out the bits they didn't want. He just couldn't see that a) the default package list needs to be a reasonable compromise between installing stuff most people commonly need and space, and that b) he could easily change things himself if that default wasn't suitable - he just considered the Debian guys to be "wrong" for not supporting his exact use case by default.

So how about a bit less complaining, and a bit more rejoicing that we have a lot more choice and flexibility than (say) Windows users !