systemd (Was Re: tmpfs for strategic directories)
mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Tue Jun 1 00:09:20 UTC 2010
On Wed, 26.05.10 09:53, Andrew Parker (andrewparker at bigfoot.com) wrote:
> >> I couldn't agree more. They need to be scripts, considering how seldom
> >> they actually run it makes even less sense to chase down optimization in
> >> them by making them compiled.
> > -21 million.
> > Scripts are a crutch to avoid properly designed daemons and
> > configuration systems. I never edit initscripts to "configure"
> > daemons, because they would just be overwritten at the next package
> > upgrade. Configuration should be separate from code.
> I don't edit them, but I do frequently look at them to see what
> they're doing/why they aren't doing something/what config files i can
> add/edit to change behaviour etc.
> actually, i do edit them sometimes to add a temporary "-x" to them.
> sure as heck beats gdb.
But the question is whether it beats systemd's kernel opts such as
"systemd.confirm_spawn=" or "systemd.log_level=", which are much more
useful to debug or trace the start-up of services.
And again, nobody said anything of replacing the current shell scripts
with identical equivalents written in C. There will be no shell-to-C
compiler or any such madness.
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
More information about the devel