You can rip out the logind requirement, the developers specifically not (see the other user's post like 1 or 2 above me). MORE specifically though... Gnome doesn't actually require -LOGIND- what it requires are the dbus interfaces that currently only logind provides. But if someone wanted to start their own login project that provided those same interfaces then Gnome could require logind OR $project_name OR neither of them for as long as the fallback code is maintained.
Originally Posted by Siuoq
Thats the beauty of it, you don't depend specifically upon logind, you depend upon the dbus interfaces it provides. Then if something else wants to provide them and do it in a non-breaking manner, then its just a drop-in replacement
Speaking as someone who's been following those discussions from the start - not likely. It's new that the BSD port of Upstart is working, but the fact that such a port existed has been known since the beginning, and it's had very little impact on discussions.
Originally Posted by JX8p
Basically, all the committee are accepting of the idea that while the continued existence of the BSD and Hurd variants is important, it's of secondary importance to doing the right thing on Linux, even if that means having different default init systems on Linux and other. It's increasingly looking like their decision will be to go with Systemd on Linux, and Upstart on the other two...
That is actually the plan, I guess, as Lennard&Co. used to work on upstart, however, they eventually realised that upstart contains unfixable fundamental design flaws.
Originally Posted by mark45
With the note that forking is not entirely free. On Ubuntu a logind fork is used to provide an alternative. Such is also mentioned in the ctte discussions. However, the dbus API will receive new items as development goes on. Things we need/want for user sessions as well as tty switching (running Wayland/Xorg not as root).
Originally Posted by Ericg
During development you need something to be aligned with. Systemd maintainers you can work with. You know the roadmap, plans, objections, etc. So you can explain your needs and they'll work on it. For Upstart option, the answer basically is "we maintain the fork". So what'll happen in practice is that GNOME will continue to work with systemd developers. Then we have no other option than to assume that Upstart option duplicates whatever has been done within the systemd project.
Above sounds like a totally insane way to work IMO. Way easier for Debian to use systemd. Choosing Upstart means consciously choosing to be behind in the latest developments. And this is not due to forcing, it is due to the lack of cooperation and development in Upstart. Further, it is not really needed, loads of people (distributions, systemd developers, developers from other projects, low level stack developers) are already working together under the systemd name.
That's not the same functionality. If you redirect the output to a file, it will forever go to that file. So good luck with logrotate and so on. Obviously you could add yet another program inbetween to solve that. But at one point it is better to just see that the way to solve it is by handling this in the init system and all other solutions might work, but are just hacks/unreliable.
Originally Posted by peppepz
using standard POSIX
Originally Posted by bkor
dosen't seem unreliable to me
you see something that could break ?
i think maybe it could be done without cat
maybe "it is better to just see"
Last edited by gens; 01-22-2014 at 08:13 AM.
sry if i came on too hard in last post
just i don't see a big problem with using standard tools and kernel provided things
edit: i see a problem
cat can be killed with a couple char's in buffer
solution, dd if=/that/fifo of=/that/log bs=1
Last edited by gens; 01-22-2014 at 08:48 AM.
Yes the first thing is you must learn actually what is the problem behind the reason the find solution or need to support from other.