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 F0FCD1381F3 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:11:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E69F4E0B70; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vc0-f180.google.com (mail-vc0-f180.google.com [209.85.220.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9F86E0B34 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 10:11:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id gd11so4146569vcb.11 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 03:11:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=R6HEgSx+/0oMK0qI2cAR8j/2yiY+Tn17yp1EHefUy9U=; b=qK7qOBaA6FqXNSG738IziKVKPToDrH6l3Nm5+MoZLPG0xLjK0yIXPeRShu5ToklRxL eBpcZR7DqQSxZkDWWSAogcDNVT2xp/E0QrEPQXTiOYD6PVTSMNbqc0fgM2oPMzei9ikZ qKwjzp/YrquPhocE+a9BwnliYTt03YURWUCbw49P6/ddQ7wZbcEZWqqjYBOip5mt8faL cfVp7U0XlGcKMbFlY/KEwhZXVlU+By2QDeyQAoioQcRSIvNf2soYq0dbOZaIaJGkrqx4 s0JDJm5Swy+AGzBeg3f3gggwwHV3X1Exp8UrB6NgLyzvMVNU+ATr0EEkxFwEHzJpTP2D x36w== 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 X-Received: by 10.58.37.165 with SMTP id z5mr12807535vej.12.1369563088897; Sun, 26 May 2013 03:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.168.233 with HTTP; Sun, 26 May 2013 03:11:28 -0700 (PDT) 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> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 06:11:28 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: B9RuaMFxpSphPiKyHN8CBmduV9w Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] eselect init From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: ab8d1284-ef80-455b-b74d-d988d03ab131 X-Archives-Hash: d0af71367ac9ee3399c0c3ed7f8c76ef On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Robert David wrote: > Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why it > would be bad. The point is somewhere else. I really dont know how many > user will switch inits and how many of them will do this regularly. > 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. On the other hand mistake in some > system process will affect only those who would actually switching. It > is only calculation of possible risks. You can have your cake and eat it too. Just don't call the wrapper init. Somebody else already suggested leaving the init implementations alone and stick the wrapper in a new binary that would need to be enabled specifically in the boot/kernel configuration. So if grub points to /sbin/einit then it runs the wrapper. If it just points to openrc/systemd then it directly executes them and bypasses the wrapper. That means that this whole thing only impacts those who install it, which is the best way to implement something experimental in the first place. Granted, I don't know the limitations of the EFI bootloaders that are out there, but this still seems like something better solved via grub configuration. When I implemented systemd in one of my VMs I just added a grub line to boot back to openrc. Rich