Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement

Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement

[Joshua Brindle]

>On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0700, Jon Kent wrote:
>> I must be honest and say that the Gentoo init system
>> is not easiest in the world, I prefer the old
>> rcX.d/Sxx[name] approach myself as its simple, but I'd
>> still prefer the current approach over the proposed
>> approach.
>
>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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1359 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 22:34, Joshua Brindle wrote:

> 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...
> 

The problem mostly with an approach like this, is that without going the
extreme python/C_with_glib_or_xml, you will prob have more overhead in
the poor bash engine figuring this out, than the speed you will get with
then starting one or two services in parallel.

I have said in the past that I will have a look at parallel startup, but
currently there are other points that is more critical and a factor
influencing the speed that needs attention.

Also, it would be nice if somebody who have used Gentoo for a while, and
are better than me at writing, would make some effort to get the docs
updated, more clear, and maybe add some of the missing man pages.  This
should already take some of the sting out of it all.  If somebody is
interested, I will gladly answer questions, etc.


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement

[George Shapovalov]

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
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)
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement

[Wouter van Kleunen]

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.

> 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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement

[Wesley Leggette]

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 <wleggette@gate.net>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Björn Lindström]

Wesley Leggette <wleggette@gate.net> [20030504 18:02]:
> 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.

Well, I am admittedly sliding away from the topic, but I feel like
getting this off my chest.

SGML (and thus HTML) was never originally intended to be human
readable/hackable. The same goes for XML. It is designed to be
easily _parsed_, not easily _read_.

This makes it unfitting for programming or configuration tasks in a UN*X
environment, where you want to be able to do all configuration tasks
with your editor.

So it's not so much about not knowing XML, but about knowing when it is
appropriate to use and when it is not.

-- 
Björn Lindström <bkhl@privat.utfors.se>
Home page: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/
Blog: http://bkhl.livejournal.com/
Elektrubadur demo: http://hem.fyristorg.com/bkhl/elektrubadur/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Joseph Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 06:49:28PM +0200, Bj?rn Lindstr?m wrote:
> SGML (and thus HTML) was never originally intended to be human
> readable/hackable. The same goes for XML. It is designed to be
> easily _parsed_, not easily _read_.

Well obviously that worked well then, given the non-triviality of any
complete SGML parser.

I've got this feeling, shared by others I think, that XML is a hammer and
everyone's looking for nail-like objects.

- -- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@efn.org>                Do not write in this space
 
<knghtbrd> Windoze CEMeNT: Now with CrackGuard(TM)!  Never worry about
           unsightly cracks in Windoze CEMeNT again!  CrackGuard(TM) is
	   so powerful that the entire thing will crumble before it will
	   crack.  Order your $200 upgrade version today!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: 1024D/20F62261F1857A3E79FC44F98FF7D7A3DCF9DAB3

iEYEARECAAYFAj61a1gACgkQj/fXo9z52rNWggCgnVGXMKGUjRSeg463iI8HJmr7
m/oAni869+E6j9KMLoCImv6yUL8w8WQY
=k0Db
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Wesley Leggette]

On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 14:34, Joseph Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 06:49:28PM +0200, Bj?rn Lindstr?m wrote:
> > SGML (and thus HTML) was never originally intended to be human
> > readable/hackable. The same goes for XML. It is designed to be
> > easily _parsed_, not easily _read_.

That's true, but it is easy to read SGML and HTML.

> 
> Well obviously that worked well then, given the non-triviality of any
> complete SGML parser.
> 
> I've got this feeling, shared by others I think, that XML is a hammer and
> everyone's looking for nail-like objects.

I think it doesn't really matter if people are trying to use XML for a
lot of different things because they're only doing so because they like
XML for whatever reason. I see the point about using an appropriate
language for the appropriate task, but I do think I would like it easier
if I could learn one language (or really syntax, since the keywords will
be different) and use it for a lot of different purposes.

But in general, it would be best if there was XML and bash style init
scripts so people could choose the one they like the best.
> 
> - -- 
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@efn.org>                Do not write in this space
>  
> <knghtbrd> Windoze CEMeNT: Now with CrackGuard(TM)!  Never worry about
>            unsightly cracks in Windoze CEMeNT again!  CrackGuard(TM) is
> 	   so powerful that the entire thing will crumble before it will
> 	   crack.  Order your $200 upgrade version today!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: 1024D/20F62261F1857A3E79FC44F98FF7D7A3DCF9DAB3
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAj61a1gACgkQj/fXo9z52rNWggCgnVGXMKGUjRSeg463iI8HJmr7
> m/oAni869+E6j9KMLoCImv6yUL8w8WQY
> =k0Db
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
Wesley Leggette <wleggette@gate.net>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Mark Bainter]

Wesley Leggette [wleggette@gate.net] wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 14:34, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > Well obviously that worked well then, given the non-triviality of any
> > complete SGML parser.
> > 
> > I've got this feeling, shared by others I think, that XML is a hammer and
> > everyone's looking for nail-like objects.
> 
> I think it doesn't really matter if people are trying to use XML for a
> lot of different things because they're only doing so because they like
> XML for whatever reason. I see the point about using an appropriate
> language for the appropriate task, but I do think I would like it easier
> if I could learn one language (or really syntax, since the keywords will
> be different) and use it for a lot of different purposes.

Hrm....learn a language or syntax that you can use for a lot of different
purposes?  I think that would be shell scripting.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Terje Kvernes]

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@efn.org> writes:

  [ ... ]

> I've got this feeling, shared by others I think, that XML is a
> hammer and everyone's looking for nail-like objects.  

  thank you.  snipped!

-- 
"I've got this feeling, shared by others I think, that XML is a hammer
and everyone's looking for nail-like objects."

                                        - Joseph Carter on gentoo-dev.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Evan Powers]

On Sunday 04 May 2003 12:49 pm, Björn Lindström wrote:
> SGML (and thus HTML) was never originally intended to be human
> readable/hackable. The same goes for XML. It is designed to be
> easily _parsed_, not easily _read_.

I think you've made an excellent point here, one people should not quickly 
overlook. Though I'll take a slightly different perspective.

XML isn't intrinsically harder to read than any other general-purpose 
expressive system. When humans say that it is, what they're really doing is 
complaining that they cannot use domain-specific sub-syntaxes. (Or rather, 
that they are discouraged from doing so.)

Example. Mathematical notation isn't /necessary/, people could just write "a 
quantity named y equals the indefinite integral of f, a function of a 
quantity named x, times the derivative of the quantity x". But they never do, 
instead preferring to write "y=", a certain squiggle, and "f(x)dx".

Does anyone actually think a human is ever going to (voluntarily) write an 
equation of even moderate complexity in MathML?

My point is this:

Starting and stopping most services is a task that can be broken down into 
execing or fork-execing another program with a particular environment, 
particular command line arguments, and particular input and output 
redirections. Shell is a domain-specific language particularly suited to 
expressing these operations.

I won't say that XML has no place, or that script snippets shouldn't be 
embedded within an XML document, or that the script a human writes shouldn't 
be immediately translated into its XML equivalent. I am saying, however, that 
humans will insist on writing in the shell domain-specific language where it 
is more convenient for them to do so, and that forcing them to do otherwise 
in the name of anything is a long-term design mistake.

Which I suppose is a quite strong statement to make after all.

Evan

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Wesley Leggette]

On Sun, 2003-05-04 at 15:25, Evan Powers wrote:
> On Sunday 04 May 2003 12:49 pm, Björn Lindström wrote:
> > SGML (and thus HTML) was never originally intended to be human
> > readable/hackable. The same goes for XML. It is designed to be
> > easily _parsed_, not easily _read_.
> 
> I think you've made an excellent point here, one people should not quickly 
> overlook. Though I'll take a slightly different perspective.
> 
> XML isn't intrinsically harder to read than any other general-purpose 
> expressive system. When humans say that it is, what they're really doing is 
> complaining that they cannot use domain-specific sub-syntaxes. (Or rather, 
> that they are discouraged from doing so.)
> 
> Example. Mathematical notation isn't /necessary/, people could just write "a 
> quantity named y equals the indefinite integral of f, a function of a 
> quantity named x, times the derivative of the quantity x". But they never do, 
> instead preferring to write "y=", a certain squiggle, and "f(x)dx".
> 
> Does anyone actually think a human is ever going to (voluntarily) write an 
> equation of even moderate complexity in MathML?
> 
> My point is this:
> 
> Starting and stopping most services is a task that can be broken down into 
> execing or fork-execing another program with a particular environment, 
> particular command line arguments, and particular input and output 
> redirections. Shell is a domain-specific language particularly suited to 
> expressing these operations.
> 
> I won't say that XML has no place, or that script snippets shouldn't be 
> embedded within an XML document, or that the script a human writes shouldn't 
> be immediately translated into its XML equivalent. I am saying, however, that 
> humans will insist on writing in the shell domain-specific language where it 
> is more convenient for them to do so, and that forcing them to do otherwise 
> in the name of anything is a long-term design mistake.
> 
> Which I suppose is a quite strong statement to make after all.
> 
> Evan
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Yes, you are absolutly right about people wanting to use a
domain-specific language when it is most convienent. It would be best to
incorporate bash scripts in any XML style system. XML is probably best
for metadata (like dependancies and such),. but the system should allow
people to use shell scripts when any tricky commands have to be issued
to start something up.
-- 
Wesley Leggette <wleggette@gate.net>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Init replacement

[C. Brewer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 884 bytes --]

On 04 May 2003 11:02:24 -0500
Wesley Leggette <wleggette@gate.net> wrote:

> 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.

I'm sorry I missed the memo that required me to learn HTML and XML. Terribly
boorish of me. I should probably go resign on on all my development projects
because I have only bothered to script in bash. Silly me.

Also I have noticed that pinit is copyrighted in several inflections of the
word, and although maybe not in the one it's intended, you know how touchy
people get.


-- 
Chuck Brewer
Registered Linux User #284015
Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Init replacement

[Wouter van Kleunen]

I wrote a new init system that has numerous advantages over the old script
based init system. Please have a look at:

pinit.sf.net

I am a gentoo user, and i converted my scripts -> services for my system.
I would like to have feedback on this system. Please try it out on your
system (safely from your home directory).


Wouter




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[Robert Wittams]

Wouter van Kleunen wrote:

> 
> 
> I wrote a new init system that has numerous advantages over the old script
> based init system. Please have a look at:
> 
> pinit.sf.net
> 
> I am a gentoo user, and i converted my scripts -> services for my system.
> I would like to have feedback on this system. Please try it out on your
> system (safely from your home directory).
> 
> 
> Wouter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

If changing the init system is on the cards, it would be far better to go
for minit. 

http://www.fefe.de/minit/

It is as small as possible, does not require massive unaudited libraries,
programmed with security in mind, does not impose a language requirement -
it will work with shell scripts just fine, but encourages the use of just
simple sym links. It wouldn't be overly arduous to make it work with
gentoos current system. 

It can be linked against diet libc too, giving better performance and
reducing code bloat. 

Robert Wittams


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Init replacement

[A.Waschbuesch]

Wouter van Kleunen wrote:
> [...] 
> I wrote a new init system that has numerous advantages over the old
> script based init system. Please have a look at:
> 
> pinit.sf.net
> [...]

Did You ever try runit (http://smarden.org/runit/)?



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list