On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 13:08:33 -0300
Guillermo <gdiazhartusch_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> From this thread:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/supervision_at_list.skarnet.org/msg01123.html
>
> 2016-01-27 9:16 GMT-03:00 Laurent Bercot:
> >
> > The biggest hurdle that *every* distribution faces is that every
> > daemon starting script is specific to the service manager, and
> > supervision systems do things very differently from non-supervision
> > systems.
> >
> > And so, daemon packages need to be separated into "mechanism" (the
> > daemon itself) and "policy" (the way to start it), with as many
> > "policy" packages as there are supported service managers.
> >
> > I plan to do this work for Alpine Linux towards the end of this
> > year; I think most of it will be reusable for other distributions,
> > including Buildroot.
Hi Laurent,
The situation you describe, with the maintainer of a distro's
maintainer for a specific daemon packaging every "policy" for every
init system and service manager, is certainly something we're working
toward. But there are obstacles:
* Daemon maintainer might not have the necessary time.
* Daemon maintainer might not have the necessary knowledge of the init
system or service manager.
* Daemon maintainer might be one of these guys who figures that the
only way to start up a system is sysvinit or systemd, and that any
accommodation, by him, for any other daemon startup, would be giving
aid and comfort to the enemy.
* Daemon maintainer might be one of these guys who tries to (example)
Debianize the run script to the point where the beauty and simplicity
and unique qualities of the service manager are discarded.
SteveT
Steve Litt
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28
Received on Wed Feb 03 2016 - 17:30:27 UTC