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 6A92913827E for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00E70E0B22; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:54:43 +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 0A129E0AE1 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:54:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0234F33F34C for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:54:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.218, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jYOHBqa_tS6P for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19F5733EE6C for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:54:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VrYob-0003iB-6w for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:54:25 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:54:25 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 20:54:25 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: rfc: renaming "rc" binary in OpenRC Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:53:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20131211204110.GA30092@linux1> <52A9DA57.6070700@plaimi.net> <20131213172307.GA6734@linux1> 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT 7161f50 /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: 1568b688-9277-49f1-ae95-6d19eac6fb8c X-Archives-Hash: d184b9a9637ab5d93292f908dfa87235 William Hubbs posted on Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:23:07 -0600 as excerpted: > There are reasons to run the rc binary directly; this is how you should > be changing runlevels. ??? init 9 (or telinit 9, yes, I have a runlevel 9, basic, just gpm as it happens) isn't appropriate? Of course, with gentoo's inittab, init then simply calls rc, but if rc is called directly, how does init know to change its runlevel, as seen as if it were passed on its commandline in top, etc? And what about additional wait/once/respawn entries? How will init know to take care of them? -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman