On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 03:13:54PM +0200, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El mié, 01-05-2013 a las 13:00 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió:
> [...]
> > >> The only remaining problem is about eselect-sysvinit, for this reason,
> > >> I am probably going to create a new separate pkg called
> > >> _sysvinit-next_, that contains all the fun stuff many developers were
> > >> not allowed to commit (besides my needs, there is also the need of
> > >> splitting sysvinit due to the issues reported in [4]). I am sure that
> > >> a masked alternative sysvinit ebuild won't hurt anybody and will make
> > >> Gentoo a bit more fun to use.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I am unable to find exact advantage of changing init system without
> > > rebooting :/, what is the advantage of booting with an init.d and
> > > shutting down with a different one?
> > 
> > No, you don't boot with A and shutdown with B. B is loaded by the
> > kernel at the next boot.
> > Switching init system is the only way to roll out a migration path,
> > among other things I already wrote about on the eselect-sysvinit bug.
> > 
> 
> Ah! OK, I misunderstood the "runtime" sense, in that case looks
> interesting :D

I still don't see the advantage of eselect-sysvinit over editing your
boot loader configuration and changing the init= kcl option, as I said
on the bug.

William