On Tue, 19.07.11 13:59, Fulko Hew (fulko.hew@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > how is shell more transparent? from my meager understanding of > > systemd we are actually getting better more systematic failure and > > logging information from systemd unit files than we get from the > > complexity of shell scripts. Are we not? > > > > Up until now, my package is architecture independent. > > >From what I understand, I will now have to provide some systemd > application that is coded in C? > If that is the case, I now have to create an RPM per-architecture > and loose my architecture independence. > > True or false? False. systemd spawns shells script just fine, or Python scripts, or Java, or Mono. From a systemd perspective we just spawn executables and it is not relevant to systemd which language they are written in and we support all of them equally well. (Even if you want to take advantage of some of the fancier systemd features like socket activation you can do so with no involvement of C and in any language that runs on Linux. The interface to pass the sockets from systemd to the services is relly simple and trivial to recode in other languages. All you need to do is parse $LISTEN_FDS and $LISTEN_PID and make use of it.) Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
