From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Onpcx-0001h2-E4 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:17:07 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 138EBE09FB; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:17:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A877E09E9 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (dslb-084-058-105-131.pools.arcor-ip.net [84.58.105.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E7511B4171 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:16:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4C738E95.1010501@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:19:17 +0200 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100806 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.1.2 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: The future of sys-apps/openrc in Gentoo References: <201007041630.07537.polynomial-c@gentoo.org> <20100704133949.0cda055a@gentoo.org> <4C30EA89.4020806@gentoo.org> <4C314233.8030809@gentoo.org> <1282575945.23781.35.camel@gdartigu.lan.rep.sj> <1282584393.4313.6.camel@TesterTop4> In-Reply-To: <1282584393.4313.6.camel@TesterTop4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 72269b21-a8f7-4bea-9c73-378baf3f76e0 X-Archives-Hash: 8dd459b4a74e1d8b606064a60e956fe5 On 08/23/10 19:26, Olivier Cr=C3=AAte wrote: > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 =C3=A0 08:57 +0000, Duncan a =C3=A9crit : >> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix] >>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can deba= te=20 >>> where we want to go from there. >>> >> >> YES, let's get it stable. >> >> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less >> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great >> thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than >> basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros). >> At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don= 't >> think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency >> based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for >> their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do). >=20 > Other distributions are going one step further and are going for > shell-free boot. We should follow that lead. >=20 That sounds like a really confused bad idea to me. At some point you will have to execute a program with a pre-setup environment and passing some arguments. You could, of course, hack that together manually. It tends to be quite a bit of work to get everything set up right and it's lots of code you'll have to maintain. Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it tends to be quite human-readable. ... why would I want to remove a stable, efficient, known-good solution that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW FEATRUES" :) (and OpenRC is by far the fastest init script manager I've seen. Performance is really not a good argument against it in this case ...)