systemd for 11.10 ?
Chow Loong Jin
hyperair at ubuntu.com
Wed May 11 14:44:02 UTC 2011
On 11/05/2011 21:34, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 5/10/2011 10:31 PM, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> Sorry, but this sounds really ridiculous right now. If systemd really prevents
>> the creation of background processes that disconnect themselves from the task
>> that init originally spawned, there's something seriously wrong with systemd,
>> and I think we really shouldn't adopt it in Ubuntu, much less for the upcoming
> SySV init always killed all processes when switching to runlevel 1. It was a
> bit kludgy though because it just did a killall as the last step before starting
> up runlevel 1 jobs, rather than just shutting down all jobs in the current
> runlevel that are not also marked for runlevel 1.
> The whole point of init is that it monitors what processes are running on the
> system and makes sure that those that are not supposed to be running in a given
> runlevel are not. The fact that some processes can hide from init during some
> runlevel transitions is a bug, not a feature.
On the other hand, you can't possibly hope to convince anyone that a persistent
screen session requiring a specialized init task is a feature, not a bug.
Let's also not forget old SysV-style /etc/init.d/* scripts that may have been
started from a graphical terminal, which will inevitably go down with
gdm/$display_manager based on what you're proposing. Or are we supposed to break
every init script not ported to systemd until the transition to systemd is
complete? This would have some serious repercussions on the syncability of
packages with init scripts from Debian.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 900 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the ubuntu-devel