From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: systemd controversy Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:01:43 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 23:01:43 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="badb6633f042ee08dd03f65d8f49603e"; logging-data="1856663"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ggg4gfW36Y3mh2LS8OXKD" User-Agent: Pan/0.155 (Kherson; fc5a80b8) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZaAfpYZLDJzc8cH+X0I290xPiW0= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:66149 List-Id: On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:56:18 -0000 (UTC), Kevin Chadwick wrote: > I'm skeptical of the flexibility being lost. systemd service definitions let you state dependencies between services. Furthermore, it separates them into ordering dependencies versus requirement dependencies. E.g. an application that uses a MariaDB database requires MariaDB to be running before it can be started (ordering + requirement dependency). An application that can (but doesn’t have to) make use of network services should be started after the network stack is up (ordering dependency). I’m not aware of any other service-management system that provides this level of control. > SysV init scripts are quite horrid but OpenBSDs rc system is far more > transparent, flexible and nicer to work with than systemd. Does it have the equivalent of cgroups? These are a Linux feature (also used by OpenRC) to ensure that, no matter how service processes may fork/ exec/terminate, the service manager can always track them down.