| 1 |
El mié, 01-05-2013 a las 13:00 +0200, Fabio Erculiani escribió: |
| 2 |
[...] |
| 3 |
> >> The only remaining problem is about eselect-sysvinit, for this reason, |
| 4 |
> >> I am probably going to create a new separate pkg called |
| 5 |
> >> _sysvinit-next_, that contains all the fun stuff many developers were |
| 6 |
> >> not allowed to commit (besides my needs, there is also the need of |
| 7 |
> >> splitting sysvinit due to the issues reported in [4]). I am sure that |
| 8 |
> >> a masked alternative sysvinit ebuild won't hurt anybody and will make |
| 9 |
> >> Gentoo a bit more fun to use. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > I am unable to find exact advantage of changing init system without |
| 13 |
> > rebooting :/, what is the advantage of booting with an init.d and |
| 14 |
> > shutting down with a different one? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> No, you don't boot with A and shutdown with B. B is loaded by the |
| 17 |
> kernel at the next boot. |
| 18 |
> Switching init system is the only way to roll out a migration path, |
| 19 |
> among other things I already wrote about on the eselect-sysvinit bug. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ah! OK, I misunderstood the "runtime" sense, in that case looks |
| 23 |
interesting :D |
Archives