| 1 |
After talking with WilliamH yesterday, I have this opinion: |
| 2 |
- Playing with /sbin/init (instead of /sbin/einit) has two interesting |
| 3 |
advantages: |
| 4 |
1. For example, I now have init=/sbin/e4rat-preload in my grub.conf, if |
| 5 |
I do a typo, it would fallback to /sbin/init. If /sbin/init is provided |
| 6 |
by sysvinit, people running other init providers could have problems. |
| 7 |
This wouldn't occur if /sbin/init has been changed to use desired init |
| 8 |
system. |
| 9 |
2. Tools like e4rat or bootchart launch /sbin/init, if I switch to |
| 10 |
systemd, I would need to edit separate configuration files for each tool |
| 11 |
to point to new init. This wouldn't occur if we "play" with /sbin/init |
| 12 |
=> we would only change init in one place |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
- I have two doubts: |
| 15 |
1. Why do we need a wrapper instead of changing symlinks? |
| 16 |
2. Why Fabio chose to move sysvinit to subdirectories... wouldn't be |
| 17 |
much simpler to simply rename /sbin/init to /sbin/sysvinit? |
Archives