From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623CE1381F3 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0137BE0D24; Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8BEDE0BDD for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id gcC11l0052khLEN0JcC1vK; Sun, 26 May 2013 14:12:01 +0200 Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 14:10:00 +0200 From: Tom Wijsman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init Message-ID: <20130526141000.2f3a974e@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20130526120119.2d9d4e3f@gmail.com> References: <51A08A68.3020900@gentoo.org> <20130526084332.1a8afa69@gentoo.org> <20130526105823.4d191bc7@gmail.com> <20130526112125.6073ef93@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <20130526120119.2d9d4e3f@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.18; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/Tn1y5.g7Z.H3D/84m_NW1hb"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 8364b0fa-46df-47e4-8a26-5e69c8671609 X-Archives-Hash: 8c223a6a021270727df78bd4850d9a47 --Sig_/Tn1y5.g7Z.H3D/84m_NW1hb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:01:19 +0200 Robert David wrote: > Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why > it would be bad. That's what I'd like to know from him, I was quoting both of you, > I really dont know how many user will switch inits and how many of > them will do this regularly. Users that would like to compare things, users that are bothered by one init system and try to try an alternative one; developers that want to test both init scripts and service units and thus need to change often, people that would want a specific init system but haven't found out how to switch properly to it yet. I think there are more than a hand full. > But the wrapper will be executed every boot. So even a tiny mistake > can produce booting problems even for those who did not wanted to > change anything in init process. One would properly test the wrapper, perhaps even have multiple members of arch teams test it, before bringing this out to the user base; it's a very critical matter and we can indeed not afford a mistake here. That being said, once the wrapper is in place and works; I don't think we need to touch it often, it's just a wrapper after all. Do other wrappers, desktop files and files of similar nature we use around Gentoo change often; I think not. > On the other hand mistake in some system process will affect only > those who would actually switching. It is only calculation of > possible risks. If you do risk assessment, you should count in all risks; that therefore also means to take maintainability into account. See my other mail about what it takes to step away from a loosely coupled approach. > I also did not say it must be done the reboot way I mentioned, this is > only and different point what can be though about.=20 And we're thinking it through, I don't see why you mention this; I can understand that you don't necessarily stand behind it though, that's OK. > >=20 > > I'd rather have a clean wrapper that just works than an unclean way > > to cover the reboot madness that comes along; forcing a reboot, > > really? > >=20 >=20 > I do not see point not forcing reboot when I'm switching init, or let > say suggesting. When you update your kernel config, rebuild and > install you also can stay working, but you have to be prepared to have > nonworking modules that was not inserted before. My point was that with a wrapper you don't need to force this; the modules problem is irrelevant to this discussion, I don't see any problem in that light with the approaches we are discussing here. PS: If this message ends up in a separate thread, it's because I'm forwarding it from my Sent mail because there was no reply-to present. --=20 With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : TomWij@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D --Sig_/Tn1y5.g7Z.H3D/84m_NW1hb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRofuYAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9gBQH+wUHky4nBYLhHbZSu5uWxyg/ SHKSZljXDprEUncC/6Og8DgMPfM2wWxABWi33iHgbaggDPELhH+ncUpMS4c0xwme LCwdq4XSvoMj2jo/780DAyompZXa7QWZUMgIGP7byjBBHGr/oLLexEpJgVsMCxV0 7Gvjp34taFWbZxZ3d56SJ2swbJkPBXBDOXonSyJBWwe7396JQvWcz/OIqzm3XHe1 2cstRBF47NRT+/KDtt3Wv5o8XdJrT+dgE27EMd0pDfQdd2rOyB42djk4iyNOOyRG xxwAq+zIvyWEcO9lNC/NgFfCJcp4CtzB7/fg1novbI3P3/8wG3QNQZeuWnePuRY= =cYVH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Tn1y5.g7Z.H3D/84m_NW1hb--