And I disagree with that. The 'sudo problem' is a good example why it makes sense to handle init and login by the same system (note I'm not meaning "same binary" here, in fact, they are separate binaries in systemd). The SUID approach for sudo has been a problem for decades, and it needs to go. I don't really care if it's done by systemd, or if we agree on another system like S6 that was mentioned in another thread - in the end, they work very similarly be replacing the old sudo with an IPC approach.
> systemd is a large beast -- no need to make it larger with unrelated things
I think I sufficiently explained why it is very much related.
> the Unix philosophy seems to be applicable here
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.
> the result should be portable to non-systemd systems
> 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.
> 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.
People who just have an axe to grind with systemd really don't like when you point out that it's incredibly modular and follows the unix philosophy.
I think what people mean to say but don't have the words for is that systemd is an East coast school of thought project and folks prefer "worse is better" style tools.
