On 12-10-2023 08:38, tito via Dng wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I would suggest instead rather than orphan-sysvinit-scripts, s6 scripts, runit scripts,
> who knows scripts... to create a collection of definition files per service
> with the needed variables (needs, provides, daemon, options to run in foreground,
> options to run in background, options to log, options for pidfile, run as user, run as group,
> you name it option, option I forgot, runit_specific_options, s6_specific_options) that could be
> sourced by sysv, runit, s6 and others to avoid duplication of effort and don't
> waste manpower.
> This would be a pain in the a** for the systemd coalition because it would make us
> really independent from them at least until they will start to modify daemons
> or the C library to check you have that particular cryptographic signature....
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Ciao,
> Tito
>

Hi,

You do make a valid point. One of the reasons for the fast adoption of
systemd has been the easy interface (service files) for developers and
packagers.
The fastest way to make inroads with an alternative init imo is to adopt
the service file format from systemd (and embrace, extend, and extinguish?).

Just my 2 cents.

Grtz.

Nick