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 22A6C1381F3 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 09:15:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B5263E08FC; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 09:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE343E08A6 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 09:15:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.95] (dynamic-adsl-84-220-80-211.clienti.tiscali.it [84.220.80.211]) (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 AEB2F33E007 for ; Sun, 2 Jun 2013 09:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51AB0D39.8050506@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 11:15:37 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130411 Thunderbird/17.0.5 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: eselect init References: <51A08A68.3020900@gentoo.org> <20130601092355.GB25065@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20130601092355.GB25065@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0e5fca06-8d15-419f-9822-4f52d14cff9e X-Archives-Hash: ebc584d14a5acc32ad112688f1aa9b84 On 06/01/2013 11:23 AM, Steven J. Long wrote: > That's not an argument for using a symlink switcher or the > equivalent across the board, by any means. Your opinion. > Firstly, we should be recommending people install Gentoo with enough > flexibility to configure and use their system how they choose. In the > UEFI arena, why not simply recommend something like rEFIt instead of > making everyone go through a load of development effort, to restrict > us all to a crippled use-case? Beside rEFIt being deprecated and rEFInd being in early stage of development (thus working great on some platforms and not working at all on some other) and with a good chunk of documentation to read before being able of deploying it? > NOTE: If you still wish to pursue a fixed config, then it's easy > enough to build it with init=/sbin/einit since presumably you want > that setup for your users. Had been considered > All I'm saying is: can we please stop trying to reinvent the kernel, > which accepts a bootloader parameter from initramfs as well, and > focus instead on the difficult part: making sure the system is in a > fit state to switch in the first place. ... > That's where the development effort is needed, if you are to provide > a mechanism to switch. The symlink and hooks etc is a total dead-end, > imo. It's simply reinventing the wheel using octagons instead of > circles. IMHO you hadn't read enough about it. > There's nothing to stop systemd being the default init, should you > want to put the install together like that. Because let's be honest: > someone has to put this install together, irrespective of how > incapable the end-user is of editing a file by themselves. And just > because the user can do it simply, that's no reason to make our > method to do it any more complex (I've never heard such a bizarre > argument.) Just edit the file via script. I do not care about systemd. > FOCUS on getting the system safe to switch. Not on reinventing > init/main.c, badly. You should read the whole thread before commenting like this that late. lu