[HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

[Chuck Anderson]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 03:49:21AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> The logic behind chkconfig is exposed in many ways in the user
> interface, for example in the chkconfig command line, e.g.
> commands such as "resetpriorities", and stuff like that.

I think having some level of command-line user-interface compatiblity, 
even if not 100%, is important.  "resetpriorities" is probably so 
rarely used that the systemd version of chkconfig could probably just 
make it a no-op (unless it was dealing with old sysvinit scripts, in 
which case it could probably just call through to the old chkconfig).  
But for basics such as "chkconfig service on|off|--list", there should 
be compatibility.  Runlevels could perhaps be dealt with by mapping 
the common cases like 3,5 to the multiuser-target, graphical-target, 
etc.  Likewise for "service foo start|stop|reload|condrestart" etc.

> Jeez. I guess you cannot be helped. I guess it doesn't help in any way
> here to mention that we were two steps ahead of you here and provide
> "systemctl show" which can be used to introspect systemd units in all
> details and properties in a parsable way. Also, we added "systemctl check"
> which prints a one line super-short status.

Well, there is some merit in the already stated argument for having 
good UI design.  In this example, you could have used long-standing 
precedent of using -v -vv -vvv (or -q -qq -qqq, or --verbose=N) 
arguments instead of "status" "show" "check".  Now you've created new 
lore of needing to know when to use "status" vs. "show" vs. "check", 
what the differences are between them, and what their order of 
increasing verbosity is.

> But anyway, I give up. If you keep looking long enough you'll find
> something you don't like in everything.

Please don't give up.  I think most of this is valid criticism that 
should be voiced, but that doesn't imply that the overall architecture 
and implementation of systemd isn't great.  I like most of what I see, 
but I do cringe at some of the command, argument, and option naming 
choices that were made.  And I think it is asking too much for users 
to have to know to use systemd-install for some things and 
chkconfig/service for others, not to mention needing to update all the 
RPM spec files for new scriptlets, or fixing anaconda to know when to 
call which (I'm guessing that anaconda might call chkconfig or 
service, but don't know for sure.  Are you sure you know where all the 
skeletons are hiding?)