On 06/14/2011 06:36 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > You go quite farther than that. > > "We can now boot a system shell-free". *Shell-free*. > > You are not saying "driving boot process by shell scripts is slow > because ... ... ..." (an argument I would agree with), you are > aiming at *eliminating* shell scripts from boot process. I think the key word here is 'can': Lennart is saying that shell is slow and unreliable and systemd allows you to engineer a streamlined boot process that brings all the necessary parts of the system up without the shell. He's not eliminating the possibility of using shell for any additional stuff, if that's what you want---just like you can get it to run a telnetd service, you should be able to run '/bin/sh myscript' service. >>> Slide 14: >>> "systemd is an Init System" >>> "systemd is a Platform" > I am saying that this is not how things > are supposed to be done in Unix. I am saying that you are trying to > incorporate as much stuff as possible into systemd, and I think it's > wrong. > [...] > I would also add "monolithic and inflexible". Sorry. You argue that it should be possible to tailor systemd to bring up a different system than Lennart imagined. It seems to me that it's reasonable that you need a different systemd, then. There are several ways of approaching this, from the most crude to most elegant: - edit the part of systemd where Lennart starts the services and compile your own version - reconfigure via compile-time conditionals - reconfigure at run-time via loadable modules, like the kernel I think that currently systemd is not configurable in the second and third sense. I agree with you that it be more in the Unix way for it to be configurable. I wonder if it's worth the effort to make it run-time configurable, even if it could use some existing run-time modular infrastructure, e.g. from the kernel. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
