Credit for the answer used in the right panel: https://serverfault.com/a/841150
When you hate something so much you have to find weird corner cases to support your views. Even then the way described isn’t how someone who knows that they are doing would do.
The best way for an unprivileged user to manage a service is for that user to run it. That way you inherit the correct permissions / acls / selinux contexts.
The command to do so is:
systemctl --user start the_service.service
What if multiple users have to manage that service?
Edit: nvrmnd, pretty sure the runnit solution won't allow this either, your answer is correct. What about while the service is already running? Wouldn't your solution require a restart?
If the service is already running it has to be stopped as a system service and run as a user service. In order to ensure that the service inherits all the correct permissions / acls / se linux policies the service needs to be launched from the limited permissions context.
With the systemd approach you’re not just passing a control handle around. You’re ensuring the process is running under an appropriate security context.
If you want to let multiple users manage the user systems service, I would probably go with sudo and systemd user files. You could create a group which has sudo access etc. The important idea is that an unprivileged user controls an unprivileged service.
With the systemd approach
What about this makes it "the systemd approach"? runit supports user services too. These are just two different tasks that are needed in different contexts. Sometimes what you need is to "pass a control handle around" to a privileged service. And sometimes you need to actually make a service unprivileged.
pretty sure the runnit solution won’t allow this either
I'm no expert, but I think you could make a special group, set the supervise directory to be owned by that group, and add all relevant users to that group? Either way, as I explained in a different reply, running the service as a user vs letting that user control a root service are completely different things, and one is not always a substitute for the other.
A generic stack overflow answer:
Do you REALLY need multiple users to manage that service? Maybe it's better to have multiple instances of that service and.... (This goes on and on)
he's trying to run the service as a user without run sudo, good luck trying that with runit
Maybe its a root shell?
he don't want to log as root, so a root shell isn't what he want
And people who like systemd just thought of the first part of the answer which is exactly what the asker ended up doing.
Which is basically the same as the runit way while putting everything in the user's directory.
Big news (from 2017): debian held back software features because someone doesn't like the new way of doing things. Let's blame systemd for this unprecedented case.
What's wrong with giving access to the specific sudo command, as suggested in the other answers?
How is chown-R someuser different from systemctl—user?
one is giving the permission to manage the system service to a specific user, the other is running the service as the current user so they have permission to manage it by default
I'm gonna fuck up my desktop now breaking away from systemd
Yeah, I would switch off, but it just doesn't seem worth the effort for something I rarely interact with.
If it’s providing you the functionality you want using an overhead you’re fine with, there’s no reason to change it.
I'm using Debian without ever having been involved in the init-wars. What's wrong with Systemd and why should i not use it?
I'd like to know too, a ELI5 version if possible. Somethingsomething monolithic, but what does that actually mean for me as an end user?
In my personal opinion, correct me if I'm wrong:
Systemd was created to replace the init system, then through extreme scope creep took over way more than wanted and needed, the main developer was "problematic" to say it politically correct, and in practice it has over complicated many super easy tasks to the point that I hate it. Other init systems were intuitive, systemd is all but.
Few weeks ago I setup a systemd server ssh server. Changing the port would be 5 seconds in changing a line in the sshd config, but now with the new and improved systemd I need to follow some nightmare documentation into creating systemd files in unrelated places and reload configs or something and I'm done with it
If you've never had a reason to not use it, then it's fine to continue using it. Systemd has been shown to be more or less stable, fast, and secure. The reason I don't like it is because it makes simple things really complicated. Some examples:
If none of these sound familiar, then switching to a non-systemd distro likely won't make your life easier. But if you do, then it might be worth considering.
And how do you do this in gnu shepherd?
You don't!
I'm out of the loop. The answer that references "one person's personal opinion" is from 2017, and the context it links to is from 2016. Surely things have changed since then, right?
.. Right?
(I'm genuinely asking, I've got no idea)
Edit: I just checked on Linux Mint 21.3. It's still on the same version as back then, 0.105. Well, Debian is nothing if not sable!
Bookworm looks to be on version 122, so as downstream distros update to newer Debian versions, it should be updated now
Is it r-unit, or run-it?
I've read it as r-unit for so long and now I've only just realised that run-it makes far more sense
lol I've been pronouncing nginx as "enn-jinx" for so long before I learned that it was "engine-ex".
Someone is asking the important questions
I'm not yet convinced that "violating the unix philosophy" is a bad thing. I'm not saying that it's not, I don't have a defined opinion about this yet
DJB is a genius
Guys I only used SystemD and I didn’t know you could use anything else lol stop hating I never had any problems!
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
Community rules
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!