| 1 |
On Fri, 2 May 2003, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Friday 02 May 2003 19:08, Jon Kent wrote: |
| 4 |
> > hmmm, interesting idea, but I have a lot of issues |
| 5 |
> > with this type of approach, namely: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > init scripts really need to be easy to maintain with |
| 8 |
> > external requirements kept to a minimum |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Also the sample scripts are not quite normal XML, as with normal xml all |
| 12 |
> newlines get interpreted (Yes, I know you can use CDATA instead of PCDATA to |
| 13 |
> keep newlines) as normal whitespace. Also, the main advantage of xml is ease |
| 14 |
> of parsing and generation by DIFFERENT programs of complicated formats. Init |
| 15 |
> scripts are not complicated formats and need only be run/parsed by one |
| 16 |
> program that is the shell that it is a script for. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For example firewall generators generate init scripts. And sysvinit |
| 20 |
frontends (KDE has a frontend) uses it. I think also mandrake has a |
| 21 |
frontend for selecting which services get booted. I dunno about suse or |
| 22 |
red hat. I don't say these distro's should immediatly start using this |
| 23 |
init. But your claim that only 1 program parses these files is not true. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > script, generally, are the easiest, more readable |
| 26 |
> > approach to init scripts. You don't modify init |
| 27 |
> > scripts every day so remembering how you did things is |
| 28 |
> > a pain if its not script based |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Quite my point |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
The same goes for all these init methods. Every distro uses a different |
| 33 |
init method |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> > |
| 36 |
> > I really do not want to learn yet another |
| 37 |
> > language/approach just to get daemons etc up and |
| 38 |
> > running on boot up |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> > I really do not see boot up speed as a problem, on |
| 43 |
> > servers and workstations you do not spend you life |
| 44 |
> > rebooting the things. I've had servers running for |
| 45 |
> > years without a reboot. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Init scripts could be faster, but the time lost is not spend waiting for init |
| 48 |
> scripts to be parsed. It is spend waiting for programs to actually start. For |
| 49 |
> that reason paralel init scripts can be useful, but a compiled init process |
| 50 |
> can add little in this. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> > I must be honest and say that the Gentoo init system |
| 53 |
> > is not easiest in the world, I prefer the old |
| 54 |
> > rcX.d/Sxx[name] approach myself as its simple, but I'd |
| 55 |
> > still prefer the current approach over the proposed |
| 56 |
> > approach. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> I find the Gentoo init system quite useful myself, but indeed it is a bit more |
| 59 |
> complicated than the S??[name] system. The tricks that redhat uses, to be |
| 60 |
> able to automate configuration though are a lot less clean than gentoo's. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> Paul |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> -- |
| 65 |
> Paul de Vrieze |
| 66 |
> Researcher |
| 67 |
> Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 68 |
> Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
-- |
| 73 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives