Le lun 29/09/2003 à 23:38, Seth Nickell a écrit : > > It's nice but it won't fly with java daemons for example. > > Java people do not care nor want to know about system stuff. You'll > > They do on "that other platform". Anyone who wants their code to be used > either has to find somebody to do the "last mile" work for them > (distributions currently) Or community packaging projects:). But I freely admit packaging java is a major pain - most upstream developers have not got the faintest idea what a properly managed system can look like (like they do not even know they have a problem). Some java apps are really nice once packaged though. > , or they have to do it themselves. Nice dream:) > IMO, > distros got into this "last mile initscripts" business because their > systems were different and incompatible, not because it was usually a > good thing. As someone that has written its share of last mile scripts I'd very much like not to have to dump them now. > > always need a shell wrapper to launch the jvm for example (well people > > may use gcj one day but you get the point), change system users and so > > on. > > Well, until we get dbus/shell bindings, you can't write shell scripts > that aren't "legacy initscripts". But you can write tiny python > wrappers, and probably perl in the not so distant future. Well if one has to do python or perl you'll make it that more difficult to package non-python or non-perl stuff. When the projects we work with provide an unix layer it's always in shell (and most often in a very primitive dialect since Jakarta for example wants its scripts to run on everything from cygwin to os X including strange and retarded Sun/HP systems). > SystemServices > probably makes it much easier to write shell wrappers than initscripts, > just because the necessary boilerplate is like 4x less. I'll wait eagerly for the shell interface then. Cheers, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=