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 786F713800E for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:31:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3668EE080A; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:31:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7C4E07DF for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (dynamic-adsl-84-221-248-58.clienti.tiscali.it [84.221.248.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D5B31B401E for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50241DCA.8080504@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 22:30:02 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120801 Thunderbird/14.0 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] Questions about SystemD and OpenRC References: <1344366029.24762.31.camel@TesterTop4> <502377E7.8010803@gentoo.org> <20120809214332.1a49b0a8@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120809214332.1a49b0a8@pomiocik.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 631bd23b-983b-4a66-8379-69c4f1cf8921 X-Archives-Hash: adb007c1203e204103e7be197a814e42 On 08/09/2012 09:43 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 > Luca Barbato wrote: > >> Repeat after me: having your first process require anything more than >> libc is stupid and dangerous. > > But you are aware that glibc is probably much, much worse than most of > those 'stupid and dangerous' libraries, right? Then we have a bigger problem, since everything in our system is based on that. >> Once that concept gets accepted then we could discuss about why >> reinventing shellscript may not be that sound and other less glaring, >> horrid and appalling design choices. > > Yes, exactly. So why does openrc reinvent that horrible shellscript? It is not re-invented, in fact we can use any compatible shell. lu