1 |
On Sun, 26 May 2013 12:01:19 +0200 |
2 |
Robert David <robert.david.public@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why |
5 |
> it would be bad. |
6 |
|
7 |
That's what I'd like to know from him, I was quoting both of you, |
8 |
|
9 |
> I really dont know how many user will switch inits and how many of |
10 |
> them will do this regularly. |
11 |
|
12 |
Users that would like to compare things, users that are bothered by one |
13 |
init system and try to try an alternative one; developers that want to |
14 |
test both init scripts and service units and thus need to change often, |
15 |
people that would want a specific init system but haven't found out how |
16 |
to switch properly to it yet. I think there are more than a hand full. |
17 |
|
18 |
> But the wrapper will be executed every boot. So even a tiny mistake |
19 |
> can produce booting problems even for those who did not wanted to |
20 |
> change anything in init process. |
21 |
|
22 |
One would properly test the wrapper, perhaps even have multiple members |
23 |
of arch teams test it, before bringing this out to the user base; it's |
24 |
a very critical matter and we can indeed not afford a mistake here. |
25 |
That being said, once the wrapper is in place and works; I don't think |
26 |
we need to touch it often, it's just a wrapper after all. Do other |
27 |
wrappers, desktop files and files of similar nature we use around |
28 |
Gentoo change often; I think not. |
29 |
|
30 |
> On the other hand mistake in some system process will affect only |
31 |
> those who would actually switching. It is only calculation of |
32 |
> possible risks. |
33 |
|
34 |
If you do risk assessment, you should count in all risks; that |
35 |
therefore also means to take maintainability into account. See my other |
36 |
mail about what it takes to step away from a loosely coupled approach. |
37 |
|
38 |
> I also did not say it must be done the reboot way I mentioned, this is |
39 |
> only and different point what can be though about. |
40 |
|
41 |
And we're thinking it through, I don't see why you mention this; I can |
42 |
understand that you don't necessarily stand behind it though, that's OK. |
43 |
|
44 |
> > |
45 |
> > I'd rather have a clean wrapper that just works than an unclean way |
46 |
> > to cover the reboot madness that comes along; forcing a reboot, |
47 |
> > really? |
48 |
> > |
49 |
> |
50 |
> I do not see point not forcing reboot when I'm switching init, or let |
51 |
> say suggesting. When you update your kernel config, rebuild and |
52 |
> install you also can stay working, but you have to be prepared to have |
53 |
> nonworking modules that was not inserted before. |
54 |
|
55 |
My point was that with a wrapper you don't need to force this; the |
56 |
modules problem is irrelevant to this discussion, I don't see any |
57 |
problem in that light with the approaches we are discussing here. |
58 |
|
59 |
PS: If this message ends up in a separate thread, it's because I'm |
60 |
forwarding it from my Sent mail because there was no reply-to present. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
With kind regards, |
64 |
|
65 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
66 |
Gentoo Developer |
67 |
|
68 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
69 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
70 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |