Re: Bug#727708: systemd vs. binfmt-support
]] Colin Watson
> As I explain in the bug [1], I think that the facilities provided by
> binfmt-support are objectively superior; and even if they were broadly
> equivalent, I'd still question the utility of converting packages from
> an interface that's been well-established in Debian for over ten years.
>
> What is the systemd maintainers' position on this bug? I bring it up
> here mainly because it's an interesting example of integration. Tollef
> said during the committee's last meeting on IRC that he hadn't thought
> much about binfmt before, so perhaps this is just a loose end.
binfmt-support is, AFAIK, only used in Debian and derivatives and in
general, I think having tools that are used across the ecosystem is more
valuable than having tools that are only used for parts of the
ecosystem.
In this particular case, as you write, I hadn't really given it any
consideration before, but what I think would make sense is to extend
systemd to support the same interface as binfmt-support and then people
who don't use systemd can use binfmt-support and those who use systemd
(on Debian or elsewhere) can use systemd-binfmt. I'm guessing the
file format of binfmt-support is stable and unlikely to change
substantially in the future.
This is the longer-term view. Short term, if there's any harm in having
both enabled, having binfmt-support disable systemd-binfmtd (by masking
it) would be fine.
Does this sound like a reasonable plan, or do you have a preference to
move in another direction?
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: