Prerequisites: Basic knowledge of a Unix system architecture; init diversity initiative.
Devember1 it’s coming and for this year (which is also my first year participating) I’ve chosen something really close to me: the init and service manager (called init/rc for the rest of the post). Specifically I’ve chosen to rewrite 66 from scratch.
Notes: In the following paragraphs there is an explanation of what led me to rewrite 66. I was planning to explain this from some time and I’ve taken to opportunity to do so now. If you are only interested in the program itself and what I’ll do in this Devember, skip to development.
Regardless of whatever “sytemd sucks”23 or not, I want to have an alternative to it. I want to be able to have at least some choiches for what runs on my system, especially when we talk about critic programs such as PID 1 and the service manager.
The alternatives currently availables (OpenRC, runit) do not offer the advantages of systemd or have some big disadvantage that do not make their use straightforward. This does not involve the design (which have been already covered in deep by skarnet here4) but only usability. Yup, I am really picky regarding the programs to use.
At the start of the 2018 I’ve learnt about s6 suite5 and s6-rc6. I wanted to try them on my newly installed Exherbo Linux system, so I have adapted the example services to run on my machine. Thanks to the help of the #s6 official IRC channel the system finally run s6/s6-rc and it was great; at boot it started all the services asynchronously and showed a working tty in the blink of an eye.
I’ve liked it so much that I stared contributing to the integration of s6 into exherbo. It consisted in s6-rc services for the various packages and a sane set of starting scripts to have a working system (called s6-exherbo7). My small VPS I configured at the time even got s6 on it.
With the time passing I’ve found the service writing and administration to be really time consuming. And that’s because it has not a user friendly interface, thus it was not made for what me (and some other users) were using it. And here it comes s6-frontend, the user interface not written yet. Skarnet has recently confirmed that he will write it in the 2021 so it won’t be ready any time soon.
Exherbo was not the only distribution adopting s6 and and among the other ones there was obarun8, developed by the omonimus creator as a fork of Arch Linux. He, too, wrote a lot of wrapper scripts to ease the use of the s6 suite, but in the end he resorted to writing his own frontend, called 669. Obarun (the distribution) was converted for 66 as soon as a working release got out.
On the other hand there was me who became an early adopter the moment I looked at the documentation9: it simply resolves almost all my issues of s6/s6-rc without any major disadvantage. It is easy to use, powerful and extensible.
So far, s6-exherbo got immediately forked into 66-exherbo10 and the old services converted to the new frontend format. Devuan too got his own 66-devuan11, which took me more than it should have had. If you are curious about the reason, 66’s developer did not want to support FHS12 in his general set of starting scripts, because he did not like this standard. In the end he accepted my patches and Devuan booted using 66.
Service enabling on Exherbo with system version of 66 suffered from a bug (Hello SIGSEGV, long time no see) and it was unusable; to make the matter worse, the bug could not be reproduced with a local copy. The developer had something else on his schedule (writing a new command-line arguments parser, apparently) and did not want to fix the bug. “I can fix it myself”, I thought: I was wrong.
66 codebase consists of 16000 lines with little to no comments, and it makes heavy use of skalibs13 and oblibs14 libraries, greatly lowering the readability (I’d like to say it is written in skarnet’s C). Downgrade wasn’t an option neither due to a breaking change in services and the various services in Exherbo already got updated. I could not find the bug, I could not enable new services and the developer did not care to fix this fatal bug. Devuan too was failing to build 66. There was enough reasons for me to fork the project and improve it, adding unit testing and have better code quality.
Now that I had the possibility, I could also rewrite it from scratch, picking different choiches from the start and avoiding the legacy code.
Note: I really like 66 project but it simply isn’t what I am searching for. I wish the best to obarun with both 66 and his distribution, for which he have worked years trying to offer a valid systemd and Arch Linux alternative.
tt (which should have been 77 or t7 but I don’t like numbers in binaries names, if not strictly necessaries) is a wrapper, or better, a frontend to s6/s6-rc.
A bit about its development:
- Written in D
The suited languages for such a project are
D. C is the fastest if used correctly; but it’s really hard to get right and requires developers to rewrite a lot of stuff (or use libs like glib or skalibs). C++ is hard and share some problem with C, I prefer to not use if I have a choiche. Rust has a microdependency ecosystem and it is hard to use C libraries as well as exposing C bindings. On the other hand, D seems suited for such a project: it is safer than C, has a GC, and it is relatively fast to write, while keeping a good performance and high flexibility.
- Use C or C++ libs
D community is not very active, so many libraries have been abandoned and the maintained ones could still have the same ending in the future. To avoid such a possibility, I have chosen to only use C/C++ libraries (way more tested and actively maintained), since Dlang makes them easy to use.
- Provide external C bindings
tt will have a library and a command-line interface. In the long-term there could be additional command lines interfaces, plugins or GUI programs to administrate the system from; it is important for me to expose a C interface so that any language could be used (after all almost every language permits to call C functions).
- Try to not reinvent the wheel
To get a working service manager as soon as possible, complex tasks will be achieved using external libraries (like parsing the services files). Reinventing the wheel is good for learning purposes, but increase the development and testing time too much for my tastes. Therefore I will try to keep it to a minimum.
These are 669’s features, which tt will keep closely to.
- Frontend service files declaration.
- Backup a complete set of services.
- Easy creation of a scandir.
- Nested supervision tree.
- Instance service file creation.
- Multiple directories service file declaration(packager,sysadmin,user).
- Easy change of service configuration.
- Automatic logger creation.
- Sane defaults
The most important thing is to make the pc boot, whatever the conditions. The users and the distribution maintainers should do the least work possible. Providing sane defaults and sane fallback helps in this matter. For example
stage1should work regardless if the initramfs has been used or not (and this didn’t happen in 66 until recently).
About the libaries used, I have to try them so I’ll problably post more details in the next weeks.
- https://devember.org/ [return]
- https://skarnet.org/software/systemd.html [return]
- https://suckless.org/sucks/systemd/ [return]
- https://skarnet.org/software/s6/why.html [return]
- https://skarnet.org/software/s6/ [return]
- https://skarnet.org/software/s6-rc/ [return]
- https://gitlab.exherbo.org/exherbo-misc/s6-exherbo [return]
- https://web.obarun.org/ [return]
- https://web.obarun.org/software/66/ [return]
- https://gitlab.exherbo.org/exherbo-misc/66-exherbo [return]
- https://git.devuan.org/66-devuan [return]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard [return]
- https://skarnet.org/software/skalibs/ [return]
- https://framagit.org/obarun/oblibs [return]