systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ?

[Rob Crittenden]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 09:48 -0800, Jeff Spaleta a écrit :
>
>> how is shell more transparent?  from my meager understanding of
>> systemd we are actually getting better more systematic failure and
>> logging information from systemd unit files than we get from the
>> complexity of shell scripts. Are we not?
>
> Right now, not at all. Systemd scrapped all kinds of "legacy" logging
> and will state on unit failure 'I failed, why I failed must be in some
> logs somewhere, go hunt for them'
>
> Not to mention that a sysV script failure can be debuged by feeding the
> script to bash -x -v, good luck doing the same in systemd
>
> systemd has a huge potential, but so far a lot of it is just that,
> potential, and potential won't make people wait long when they have
> clear and present problems caused by the missing bits. I don't think
> it's wise to remove more "legacy" stuff before replacing all that's
> already been removed. That may be the best path technically but from a
> communication POW it's a disaster.
>

I have to agree here. With sysV scripts if some odd things isn't working 
you can brute force tracinging it with:

strace -f /etc/init.d/somescript

and chances are you'll find out what went wrong.

AFAIK there is no equivalent in systemd and the status output has not 
been useful in the cases I've run into it (again just reporting that the 
service didn't start but not why).

rob