1 |
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 12:35:29AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
2 |
> On 06/02/2013 08:20 PM, Steven J. Long wrote: |
3 |
> > On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 11:15:37AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
4 |
> >> On 06/01/2013 11:23 AM, Steven J. Long wrote: |
5 |
> >>> That's not an argument for using a symlink switcher or the |
6 |
> >>> equivalent across the board, by any means. |
7 |
> >> |
8 |
> >> Your opinion. |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > That's not an argument for it either. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Had been explained in the thread, please read it. |
13 |
|
14 |
.. |
15 |
> Again you should read the whole thread, please do, the whole eselect |
16 |
> init stuff should stay opt-in for the time being so all this discussion |
17 |
> is close to pointless. |
18 |
|
19 |
Actually the point is how to implement the best solution in Gentoo, which is |
20 |
the point of this mailing-list. To float ideas and see what other perspectives |
21 |
can contribute to the design. For instance, I think Duncan's idea of a single |
22 |
mode, effectively secondary bootloader, is the only thing that makes any sense. |
23 |
|
24 |
It's a Gentoo-specific init-switcher that only runs when the user has initiated |
25 |
a switchover. |
26 |
|
27 |
Implementing an init fallback is unneeded, since the kernel tries so many paths |
28 |
already. And Duncan's mail is at least about the interesting, and *useful* part: |
29 |
making the system ready to switch, and a setup for init-system switching as a |
30 |
whole. |
31 |
|
32 |
Including write to rootfs, eg to change inittab format. |
33 |
|
34 |
> Consider this email a friendly warning, please do not pollute the Gentoo |
35 |
> media with pointless email when you had been already politely told that |
36 |
> your concern had been addressed in the previous email in the thread. |
37 |
|
38 |
No you weren't polite. You wrote an email that had zero technical content in |
39 |
it and that was basically just 'ad-hominem' as has been pointed out to me: |
40 |
|
41 |
http://www.netbooknews.com/wp-content/2011/07/the-pyramid-of-debate-550x417.jpg |
42 |
|
43 |
Review your last email in the context of the above, please. |
44 |
|
45 |
> > You're free to work on whatever you want. You just haven't made any |
46 |
> > case for why the rest of the ecosystem should be crippled to allow for a |
47 |
> > use-case that would be better served by an existing, far more robust |
48 |
> > solution. |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Had it been the case we wouldn't had spent some weeks picking our brains |
51 |
> on it. |
52 |
|
53 |
Yes because programmers never make mistakes, and humans are so good at separating |
54 |
the woods from the trees.. |
55 |
|
56 |
> > Then it can be runit or whatever else takes your fancy. You are ignoring |
57 |
> > the point of that paragraph though: someone has to put the install together. |
58 |
> > |
59 |
> > Or it isn't a Gentoo install. |
60 |
> |
61 |
> And you seem to miss the point that all you are telling had been |
62 |
> discussed, taken in consideration and in some part agreed with already... |
63 |
|
64 |
Lala. Someone puts the install together: they run (or their script runs): |
65 |
mv /sbin/init /bin/init && mv /sbin/einit || error 'unable to setup init' |
66 |
|
67 |
> > Wrt to the first, funnily enough the kernel developers have been here before, |
68 |
> > just like they had with ethN and wlanN. It's a basic requirement for developing |
69 |
> > an OS that you be able to switch init and fallback to other options. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> Again you didn't ready or you forgot. I said already I don't care about |
72 |
> systemd many times, yet you failed to remember that. |
73 |
> My specific use-case would require a trip to single mode and a second |
74 |
> reboot, the way I want to do spares that. |
75 |
|
76 |
Actually none of this has got anything to do with systemd, nor did I mention it, |
77 |
so please stop banging on about your feelings about it. They're not relevant to |
78 |
this discussion, since it's init-system agnostic, just like the kernel fallback |
79 |
mechanism is, or there's no point to it. |
80 |
|
81 |
> On an EFI-stub only system it would require at least a kernel rebuild or |
82 |
> a trip to the efi shell if available. |
83 |
|
84 |
No it wouldn't, see above. And http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=136968639518816&w=2 |
85 |
|
86 |
> > Honestly, my goal is a saving of time so people can focus on making the |
87 |
> > eselect module work properly, and be of real value to an end-user who wants |
88 |
> > to switch init. |
89 |
> |
90 |
> To not make this a waste of time here a summary of the whole thing: |
91 |
|
92 |
Ah finally some technical content. Yes, the above was a waste of time, and so |
93 |
was your last email. Just a friendly reminder. |
94 |
|
95 |
> - eselect init will be opt-in for the time being, people can be left on |
96 |
> their own tools if the want it |
97 |
|
98 |
Yes, but we want a sane and robust implementation in Gentoo, irrespective of |
99 |
who's using it. |
100 |
|
101 |
> - the default init will stay sysvinit. Discussion ongoing if is better |
102 |
> to have it installed in a secondary fallback path is open (e.g. /bin/init). |
103 |
|
104 |
You mean "use the kernel fallback mechanism"? I'm sure you won't be surprised |
105 |
to hear I think that's a good idea. |
106 |
|
107 |
> - I still need to send patches to busybox and sysvinit upstream to add a |
108 |
> command line switch to locate the inittab. |
109 |
|
110 |
Sounds good. busybox using the standard location with a non-standard format |
111 |
sounds like a mistake though, at least for the default Gentoo config, where |
112 |
it is supposed to live alongside the normal Linux utils. When the user has |
113 |
a saved-config, it is of course up to them what happens. |
114 |
|
115 |
> - people wanting to switch init or enable/disable init addons using |
116 |
> eselect init might have to refer to /sbin/einit or such custom path |
117 |
> (assuming we fail to come to an agreement regarding /bin/init) |
118 |
> |
119 |
> The wrapper in /sbin/init is mostly needed to get to the point of a |
120 |
> clean reboot. |
121 |
|
122 |
I think Duncan's idea makes a lot of sense. It'd be easy enough to write the |
123 |
base framework to use sh modules, which users and init-system devs collaborate |
124 |
on, and users maintain effectively over time, by sending in bug-reports and |
125 |
patches. The existing openrc codebase could be used as a starting point. |
126 |
|
127 |
> The first time you boot on a new system it is executed picking the new |
128 |
> init and just that. |
129 |
> |
130 |
> For addons such as bootchart2 and e4rat it would do slightly more. |
131 |
> |
132 |
> Assuming upstream doesn't accept custom paths for the inittab, for my |
133 |
> specific usecase I might bake something that would remount r/w and pivot |
134 |
> the inittabs. |
135 |
|
136 |
Or build that in as part of the design, as Duncan raised. |
137 |
|
138 |
> Anybody willing to do something more extreme could even consider having |
139 |
> /sbin/init as a symlink and have the boot-time configuration switch the |
140 |
> symlink, thus making the whole script run just a single boot per switch. |
141 |
> |
142 |
> Not necessary but surely feasible. |
143 |
|
144 |
Many things are doable. Many less are advisable. |
145 |
|
146 |
-- |
147 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |