On 10/17/18 9:58 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:30:50AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
>>> c) where and how would you draw the line indicating what's unacceptable about
>>> systemd - in other words, what exactly do you mean by "the Unix paradigm" in
>>> your comment above?
>> Split out the PID 1 stuff to just the bare minimum of what needs to be
>> there, organize everything else into appropriate units.
>>
>> This is not a trivial project, which is why nobody has taken it on AFAIK,
>> but systemd must be doing something that package maintainers and developers
>> want. That suggests that the way to beat them is to do that, only better.
> The problem is exactly there: you don't really need systemd if you
> just need a reliable PID 1. What appeals systemd's enthusiasts is the
> process supervision and management system. Which is probably 90% of
> the reason why systemd needed to fagocitate the whole low-level
> user-space (please remember that the only way to reliably know that a
> process is dead under unix is to be the parent of that process....).
You can be the parent process of a userspace without being PID 1.
That's the beauty of it.
> I know the issue looks easy and straightforward on the surface. But
> when you start looking into it seriously, you quickly realise that
> things are not as straightforward as you thought ;)
>
The problem description is very straightforward.

I don't know how hard implementing it will be.

I guess as the person who suggested it, it's my responsibility to at
least scope it out properly.

Me and my big mouth.

--
Daniel Taylor