systemd (Was Re: tmpfs for strategic directories)

[Colin Walters]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Lennart Poettering
<mzerqung at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 26.05.10 09:07, Adam Williamson (awilliam at redhat.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:42 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin <cdahlin at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdahlin at redhat.com) wrote:
>> > > [...]
>> > > 3) Cutting down on the forking by replacing some of the shell scripts... cool
>> > >   3a) With C code... really?
>> >
>> > This does make a lot of sense to me, initscripts being scripts is a
>> > major slowdown factor
>> > by itself.
>> >
>> > It is not like you want to edit the scripts all the time, so there is
>> > no reason for them being scripts.
>>
>> I beg to differ. I've had to create or modify initscripts quite often,
>> either as a sysadmin or a packager. If this is now going to require C
>> coding skills, I'm not going to be able to do it. I don't think it's
>> safe to assume that everyone who needs to write or modify an initscript
>> is going to know C. What about people who write apps that need
>> initscripts in some other language?
>
> THERE ARE NO PLANS TO SHIP COMPILED INIT SCRIPTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!
>
> The plan is to reduce what is currenlty done in files like
> /etc/init.d/messagebus to files like
> http://0pointer.de/public/dbus.service.

Also:

> Description=D-Bus System Bus

This seems unnecessary.  Can we default to the name of the script?  If
this isn't translated, I don't see how it's more interesting than just
"dbus".

> Requires=basic.target sockets.target dbus.socket
> After=basic.target sockets.target dbus.socket

What does this goop mean and why is it necessary?