[oe] [meta-oe][RFC 00/27] systemd / initmanager rework

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op 08-02-12 01:39, Joshua Lock schreef:
> On 07/02/12 07:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 13:12, Andreas Müller 
>> <schnitzeltony at googlemail.com>wrote:
>> 
>>> * These are my first python experiences - suggestions welcome. * In
>>> local.conf (or in distro) the configuration variable INIT_MANAGER 
>>> selects the initmanager to be build into an image. When changing the
>>> selection, a build from scratch is required. INIT_MANAGER currently
>>> defaults to systemd (see image.bbclass and initmanager.bbclass) * In
>>> systemd.bbclass debug messages were left in to have a better
>>> overview what's going on. * An additional patch series goes out for
>>> meta-angstrom. * This is a huge RFC which might cause serious
>>> impacts. What I have already detected after a build from scatch is
>>> that /var/lib/opkg is missing in the image (although it can be found
>>> in libopkg.ipk). I will spend the next days with my new friend
>>> buildhistory (thanks for this!!).
>>> 
>> 
>> I've looked at your changes and they does seem to be a good base for 
>> further work:
> 
> I agree, good job!
> 
>> * The init system ought to be a DISTRO_FEATURE (as sysvinit ought to be
>> too IMO)
> 
> I know there's some disagreement with the suggestion that the init
> system ought to be a DISTRO_FEATURE but my (admittedly uninformed)
> opinion is that I can't see how we can avoid it.
> 
> It looks like systemd provides various interfaces and API's that packages
> may or may not use and as more packages adopt these we're going to need
> to be able to enable/disable more than just some unit files/scripts for
> init support.

Most (if not all) of those APIs are designed to be used with or without
systemd as initmanager, that is why there are seperate shared libraries. I
need to double check, but polkit might be the only exception to that in that
it needs to have systemd actuall running. But multi-seat is broken anyway
currently, so not much difference for the end user either way :)

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAk8yL+UACgkQMkyGM64RGpGzNgCfc5P0yfHki4nm47iNNQhAIPs9
xnMAnidOD1px6uM6stwY47LP7oA+4O29
=zO5G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----