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

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 22:13 -0400, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> 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.

Mostly I agree. Just a small modification: we don't really have to care
about how often the commands are used *now*, just whether they would
make any sense at all with systemd. resetpriorities clearly wouldn't, so
with a full systemd system, resetpriorities should simply print an
informational message to the effect that it's an absurd command. With a
mixed system where systemd is still handling some old-school sysvinit
scripts, it should reset the priorities of those.

> > 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?)

Right. Please try to take the constructive bits from the criticism,
Lennart, and just leave the rest. You don't need to engage with it.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net