[systemd-devel] feature request: dlopen

[Martin Pitt]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton [2015-02-23  2:08 +0000]:
>  the problem, zbigniew, is that the intended use of this "silent noop"
> feature - to make it *possible* to have an alternative PID1 - *hasn't
> happened*.

It sure has. Debian supports systemd, SysV init, and to a lesser
degree OpenRC and upstart.

> any upstream software developer who has added in support for systemd
> has done so by *ripping out* the former alternative code.  not a
> single upstream system that i've seen has done *any* kind of
> run-time detection *at all*.  it's all compile-time.

libsystemd does that very run-time detection, and upstream software
usually falls back to the "normal" way of opening sockets if socket
activation via libsystemd fails (either because you aren't running
systemd or the service isn't socket activated).

> aside from getting the message across to upstream developers about
> doing runtime detection, i feel that what you guys really need to do
> is to set up conferences with everyone, to talk - urgently - about
> ways to ensure that the alternative systems which the wholesale
> adoption of systemd has excluded may be reinstated as *runtime*
> choices (not compile-time).

You didn't follow, or see the results of the big Debian systemd debate
at all, did you? :-)

Pretty please do some actual research about the situtation first, and
keep apart libsystemd (harmless, works with any init system) from
systemd (the init system, pid 1, services around it, etc).

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)