[PATCH 0/5] Support service activation through Upstart

[Scott James Remnant]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzqohf at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 23.12.10 14:42, Scott James Remnant (scott at netsplit.com) wrote:
>
>> > Now after all that you do want this kind of activation hookup for
>> > upstart too, and now want to litter the D-Bus source code with multiple
>> > implementations which happen to be almost entirely identical except that
>> > a few strings are named differently.
>> >
>> No, I was just too busy - and by the time I dug myself out of the TODO
>> list, you'd already sent in your own patches.  Note that I have at
>> least tried to clean up your patch so it's at least a case of
>> extending an enum rather than extra arguments.
>
> Ah, because my patch was so "dirty" you cleaned it up? Thanks for that,
> man!
>
No offense meant here.  Perhaps it's an Ubuntu phrase, someone will
often patch something and someone else will "clean it up" later.
Usually we're referring to something being hardcoded, like your patch
had systemd_* arguments rather than the enum I replaced it with.

>> And I have at no point said I'm not interested in defining common
>> specs,
>
> Oh, you have said it very explcitly a couple of times, and IIRC in your
> recent Upstart videocall thingy, too.
>
The only conversations I can remember we've had, and there really
aren't that many as we haven't had that much opportunity to talk since
Plumbers *last year* when we discussed adding socket-based activation
to Upstart, have been about LISTEN_FDS.

I can only remember maybe one thread about it, in fact, way back in
May.  And I think my only reply to that was
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-May/136755.html
where I actually say I can't see any reason not to support it.  Just
that I also intended to support the mechanism I'd planned, because it
gave more support for me.


On the videocall I believe your question was whether I'd adopt the
systemd config format as a common spec.  I'm happy to admit I said no
to that.  Upstart and systemd work fundamentally different, your
configuration format wouldn't work for Upstart.

If you'd asked whether I'd be happy to sit down and discuss a common
format we could both share, then you'd have got a different answer.

>> all I've said is that I'm not interested in using your
>> interfaces as the common spec.  I'm more than happy to sit down and
>> work something else that's fresh.
>
> Got it, you are happy to agree on common interfaces, as long as it is
> not me who came up with them. Very grown up.
>
Not at all, I'm happy to agree on common interfaces as long as we both
agree on them, and that they fit the way both of our projects work.
It doesn't matter "who came up with them", all that matters is that
it's done in the form of a conversation and agreement before final
implementation.

The way I see our two projects is like GNOME and KDE.  We have
different goals and both systems work quite differently.  A number of
distributions will be using Upstart and a number of distributions will
be using systemd.

Those two projects have found middle-ground where they can agree on
standards they both share, so that Copy and Paste work between their
respective desktop environments.  We should be able to find
middle-ground so that we don't break the entire Linux plumbing world
into "Ubuntu compatible" and "Fedora compatible".

But please don't expect me to swallow your final implementations
whole, I wouldn't expect the same of you.  I am happy to discuss
things of course.


Now I do know I've been MIA for most of this year, I'm only human and
it's been an annus horriblis extremis; and it's not always been easy
to get in touch with me. But you do know which mailing lists I'm on,
and personal e-mail is always welcome from you.

Please don't expect an hour's response on every topic though - as you
know I'm in the process of leaving Canonical and starting a new job,
which may entail moving.  But I will always try.

Scott