| 1 |
Dear Luca, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> writes: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> That's good =) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
:) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>> Evaluation of other init systems (smf, launchd, upstart and systemd is |
| 10 |
>> done by mgorny. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You'll need to learn and teach us as well =) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Though not with deep understanding :O |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
>>> and see if there are changes to our end of project plans since lots |
| 17 |
>>> happened during this time =) |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> The new plan is that I'd like to work with rleigh from debian to |
| 20 |
>> package openrc in debian and make it as an alternative init system. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> That part is quite important, as is getting to compile LSB scripts to |
| 23 |
> openrc ones (and/or vice-versa) and possibly get openrc support /run/ |
| 24 |
> directories |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I agree. Let me dive into it this week. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
>> What we've discussed in the beginning, such as event-driven init, |
| 29 |
>> periodical events, process monitoring and crash restart are still on |
| 30 |
>> the todo list. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> That's great, do you feel confident you'll be able to get all of this |
| 33 |
> done? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I feel these are not technically difficult. But the policies count, |
| 36 |
besides the debates that if we really need these fancy features for an |
| 37 |
init system. My current feeling (or planning) is that just to make dirty |
| 38 |
ones with simple scripts to see if our community (debian is more similar |
| 39 |
to us than fedora) really like the things. The rule of thumb is to |
| 40 |
always make them optional, hopefully independent, components. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Yours, |
| 43 |
Benda |
Archives