On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 12:15:29 +0100
Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:

> Le 29/11/2019 à 02:08, s@po a écrit :
> > freedesktop.org, should adress the situation,
>
>     I don't trust Freedesktop to produce a good quality standard. I
> don't know who are the people behind Freedesktop, beyond Gnome and KDE,
> but they have produced Dbus and also the practice to automatically
> create unwanted directories in your home, unless you disable them
> explicitely.
>
>     If "unit" files are something which can be retained (after all,
> there might be one non-negative outcome of Systemd), they can be used to
> produce init scripts for various init systems, or these init systems
> could be made able to, optionnaly, read their configuration from "unit
> files".
>

I don't trust them neither..
But, they should have addressed this problem after all they were waving the flag of standards..
They seems to forgot a Standard Init API mechanism.. shame..

I spoke about that because I took 5 minutes to look at last development of SysVInit, and indeed you find there some stuff about systemd and dbus integration..
I understand the dbus integration as a way, so that SysVinit daemons could coexist with Dbus controlled daemons..

The Idea arrived..
Why not have an Interpreter, for the UnitFiles, that then internally do things as SysVInit does?
In this way we could preserve SysVinit daemons functionality, and when impossible( or a "unscallable wall arrive".. ), SysVinit will continue to control, the usual daemons, plus the wave of non SysVinit ones( in the mean time we could have time to port daemons at the speed we can.. ).

So this idea is some sort of a patched SysVinit, to have half of the 'Script Injector' idea( the interpreter of unit files part ), and some logic to do it like sysVInit does..
But that would also means.. that we had to have in /etc/init.d/, all the s*tty systemD service files.. which is a bit crazy..

Best Regards,
tux


--
tux <tuxd3v@???>