1 |
>On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:08:03AM -0700, Jon Kent wrote: |
2 |
>> I must be honest and say that the Gentoo init system |
3 |
>> is not easiest in the world, I prefer the old |
4 |
>> rcX.d/Sxx[name] approach myself as its simple, but I'd |
5 |
>> still prefer the current approach over the proposed |
6 |
>> approach. |
7 |
> |
8 |
>It's not a proposal to change Gentoo's default init-system (or at least I |
9 |
>hope so). I fully support the OP with his work because one can never know |
10 |
>what it provides untill it's available. |
11 |
> |
12 |
>So, keep up the development. |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
I agree. Everyone here should know very well that gentoo is about |
16 |
choices. We provide the user with choices every opportunity we have, |
17 |
though some places it's difficult to do. When a choice presents itself |
18 |
don't scrutinize it, we do not ever attempt to lock users into a single |
19 |
solution, and we make every attempt to provide as many choices as possible. |
20 |
|
21 |
On the subject of init scripts, I recall having a conversation with seemant |
22 |
about this init system which used tree based dependancies and could start |
23 |
init scripts simaltaeneously if their dependancy trees didn't collide (for faster |
24 |
bootups), does this solution provide this? we'd really like to get something |
25 |
that will take some of the overhead out of the init system... |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
Joshua Brindle |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |