3 ms·
> I think I sufficiently explained why it is very much related. This: | Systemd already handles logins ? But I don't see why a bring-up/shutdown system shou
by cryptonector 3y ago
> I think I sufficiently explained why it is very much related.
This:
| Systemd already handles logins
?
But I don't see why a bring-up/shutdown system should handle logins.
> Systemd very much follows the unix philosophy. It is not one big binary, but actually consists of dozens and dozens of tools communicating with each other through protocols.
That is fine. As long as this service (sudo replacement) is a standalone, separate daemon started by a systemd unit, I'm happy. If it's a core part of systemd itself then I'm not happy.
> Portable on what basis? POSIX?
Or Linux / glibc / musl, sure, why not. Some people (no, not me) want to run Linux w/o systemd. The point is that a sudo replacement service should be fairly portable to the universe of UNIX/Unix/BSD/Linux.
- deng 3y ago> Or Linux / glibc / musl, sure, why not. Some people (no, not me) want to run Linux w/o systemd. The point is that a sudo replacement service should be fairly portable to the universe of UNIX/Unix/BSD/Linux. This fetish of "everything should just stick with libc and POSIX" needs to go. These standards have not evolved at all, they are decades behind and don't even remotely cover the necessary requirements for implementing a "sudo replacement service". Just stick with sudo then.