[adelie-devel] Re: Future of GNU coreutils and OpenRC

From: Samuel Holland <samuel_at_sholland.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2019 14:59:02 -0600


On 03/03/19 12:49, zlg wrote:
> Over the past few days, conversation in IRC has brought about talk of
> the s6 set of utilities becoming more strongly integrated with Adélie,
> with a hopeful end result of s6 powering init (once s6-linux-init is
> done), services (via s6-rc), and process supervision, among other things
> like tcp wrappers, etc. Talk of gutting GNU coreutils was also present.

Note that there has never been the suggestion to _remove_ OpenRC. s6-linux-init
is not a replacement for OpenRC; they serve entirely different functions. If s6
replaces anything, it would be sysvinit; and even then the user interface to
"init" stays mostly the same. The only difference would be that /etc/inittab is
replaced by the pair of scripts /etc/rc.init and /etc/rc.shutdown (gettys are
already removed from /etc/inittab).

None of that affects OpenRC's interface. In fact, OpenRC already has official s6
integration upstream (from Gentoo). This integration means that, instead of
starting daemons directly (or using a helper such as start-stop-daemon), OpenRC
delegates supervision to s6. This provides the benefits of more reliable
logging, more reliable service shutdown, and automatic restarting of services
that crash (all nice features!), while not affecting the service/rc/rc-update
user interface at all.

s6-rc integration, on the other hand, _would_ be an alternative to OpenRC, but
only as an _additional_ choice. User choice of service management systems has
always been a goal of Adélie -- that's why the init scripts have been in split
packages from the beginning.

> I'd like to ask: what does this mean for developers or users like myself
> who currently use GNU coreutils and OpenRC? What is Adélie's official
> long-term statement on the "main" software stack? (for lack of better
> phrasing)

I don't speak for the project, but my understanding of the coreutils issue is
that, in order to avoid conflict with the FSF, coreutils should not be in the
_base install_. It would _not_ be removed from the distribution, and you could
install it just like any other package (it would provide cmd:foo for all
appropriate binaries, and apk would take care of handling conflicts), and it
would remain installed on your existing systems. In short, the impact to users
like you should be "none".

> Thanks for your time and consideration.
> ~zlg

That's my understanding; hopefully it's accurate,
Received on Sun Mar 03 2019 - 21:17:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sat May 08 2021 - 22:54:40 UTC