| 1 |
On Fri, 2 May 2003, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I totaly agree with the choice argument. |
| 4 |
> Then, personally I have a mixed feeling about this system. On one hand I have |
| 5 |
> all the same arguments about introducing unnecessary dependencies, tightness |
| 6 |
> and non-compliance (not that our present way is completely "compliant", but |
| 7 |
> this one is much further away.). |
| 8 |
> On the other hand this is quite a nice approach to automation of init scripts |
| 9 |
> handling and looks to be a clean way to parallelize the process. The former |
| 10 |
> should allow creation of nicely looking front ends for init sequence |
| 11 |
> manipulation, which even a newbie user should be able to apply for simplistic |
| 12 |
> manipulation, but that should also allow a more involved edits for the |
| 13 |
> inclined user. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This makes me think, that both approaches have a room to existance as they are |
| 16 |
> targeting diferent situations (namely small goal-specific systems, where |
| 17 |
> tightness and hands-on controll are a must vs desktop and ease-of-abuse). |
| 18 |
> Thus the only sensible way of going about adding this to gentoo I see is to |
| 19 |
> create a new (experimental) profile. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Wouter: this apparently requires: |
| 22 |
> 1. impementation to stabilize |
| 23 |
Yup. I believe it is usable now, but only for people who know what they |
| 24 |
are doing. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> 2. finding large enough group of interested people, who would provide support |
| 27 |
> and maintaince to the profile (and this is apparently pointless without some |
| 28 |
> backing on a user side) |
| 29 |
I cannot write all the services myself, so indeed i need people to back me |
| 30 |
up on this. The same goes for sysvinit, the author of sysvinit did not |
| 31 |
write all the init scripts in the world. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> 3. appropriate packaging of all related software, so that it could be |
| 34 |
> effectively handled by the profile.. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> As you see not too small amount of work ;), but who knows, may be some time |
| 37 |
> this will become more popular than our present way? |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> George |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> On Friday 02 May 2003 13:34, Joshua Brindle wrote: |
| 43 |
> > >On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0700, Jon Kent wrote: |
| 44 |
> > >It's not a proposal to change Gentoo's default init-system (or at least I |
| 45 |
> > >hope so). I fully support the OP with his work because one can never know |
| 46 |
> > >what it provides untill it's available. |
| 47 |
> > > |
| 48 |
> > >So, keep up the development. |
| 49 |
> > |
| 50 |
> > I agree. Everyone here should know very well that gentoo is about |
| 51 |
> > choices. We provide the user with choices every opportunity we have, |
| 52 |
> > though some places it's difficult to do. When a choice presents itself |
| 53 |
> > don't scrutinize it, we do not ever attempt to lock users into a single |
| 54 |
> > solution, and we make every attempt to provide as many choices as possible. |
| 55 |
> > |
| 56 |
> > On the subject of init scripts, I recall having a conversation with seemant |
| 57 |
> > about this init system which used tree based dependancies and could start |
| 58 |
> > init scripts simaltaeneously if their dependancy trees didn't collide (for |
| 59 |
> > faster bootups), does this solution provide this? we'd really like to get |
| 60 |
> > something that will take some of the overhead out of the init system... |
| 61 |
> > |
| 62 |
> > Joshua Brindle |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> -- |
| 66 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives