From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18303 invoked by uid 1002); 4 May 2003 16:12:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 4448 invoked from network); 4 May 2003 16:12:34 -0000 From: Wesley Leggette To: Wouter van Kleunen Cc: George Shapovalov , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1052064144.1708.3.camel@cyr.kaylix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1- Date: 04 May 2003 11:02:24 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement X-Archives-Salt: 1a825fab-2651-443b-b8fa-ba1d72cd4ac9 X-Archives-Hash: 0c4092d781ba668a3d212a8f9302c545 On Sat, 2003-05-03 at 04:14, Wouter van Kleunen wrote: > On Fri, 2 May 2003, George Shapovalov wrote: > > > I totaly agree with the choice argument. > > Then, personally I have a mixed feeling about this system. On one hand I have > > all the same arguments about introducing unnecessary dependencies, tightness > > and non-compliance (not that our present way is completely "compliant", but > > this one is much further away.). > > On the other hand this is quite a nice approach to automation of init scripts > > handling and looks to be a clean way to parallelize the process. The former > > should allow creation of nicely looking front ends for init sequence > > manipulation, which even a newbie user should be able to apply for simplistic > > manipulation, but that should also allow a more involved edits for the > > inclined user. > > > > This makes me think, that both approaches have a room to existance as they are > > targeting diferent situations (namely small goal-specific systems, where > > tightness and hands-on controll are a must vs desktop and ease-of-abuse). > > Thus the only sensible way of going about adding this to gentoo I see is to > > create a new (experimental) profile. > > > > Wouter: this apparently requires: > > 1. impementation to stabilize > Yup. I believe it is usable now, but only for people who know what they > are doing. > > > 2. finding large enough group of interested people, who would provide support > > and maintaince to the profile (and this is apparently pointless without some > > backing on a user side) > I cannot write all the services myself, so indeed i need people to back me > up on this. The same goes for sysvinit, the author of sysvinit did not > write all the init scripts in the world. I'll definitly help out writing scripts. Your system is so much easier to read than sysvinit. And it's a lot easier to write for. It's more english like. And, hey, if you can't write for XML, I don't know WHAT you've been doing all these years. Everybody should know HTML, and XML's syntax is the exact same. There's only about five new words to learn to get your XML down pat. I don't understand why people are being such a stick in the mud about all this. > > > 3. appropriate packaging of all related software, so that it could be > > effectively handled by the profile.. > > > > As you see not too small amount of work ;), but who knows, may be some time > > this will become more popular than our present way? > > > > George > > > > > > On Friday 02 May 2003 13:34, Joshua Brindle wrote: > > > >On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0700, Jon Kent wrote: > > > >It's not a proposal to change Gentoo's default init-system (or at least I > > > >hope so). I fully support the OP with his work because one can never know > > > >what it provides untill it's available. > > > > > > > >So, keep up the development. > > > > > > I agree. Everyone here should know very well that gentoo is about > > > choices. We provide the user with choices every opportunity we have, > > > though some places it's difficult to do. When a choice presents itself > > > don't scrutinize it, we do not ever attempt to lock users into a single > > > solution, and we make every attempt to provide as many choices as possible. > > > > > > On the subject of init scripts, I recall having a conversation with seemant > > > about this init system which used tree based dependancies and could start > > > init scripts simaltaeneously if their dependancy trees didn't collide (for > > > faster bootups), does this solution provide this? we'd really like to get > > > something that will take some of the overhead out of the init system... > > > > > > Joshua Brindle > > > > > > -- > > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > > > > > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- Wesley Leggette -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list