| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 01:50:02PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 06/21/2013 01:26 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Thanks for the explanation. But I think that, currently, the only |
| 4 |
> > remaining "objection" is whether play with /sbin/init (that needs |
| 5 |
> > sysvinit to be changed if I don't misremember) or with /sbin/einit. |
| 6 |
> > Looks like mgorny has shown some problems on relying on "einit" instead |
| 7 |
> > of plain "init" regarding to fallback :/ |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I prefer having /sbin/init used for the pivot since /sbin/einit is a bit |
| 10 |
> more brittle and as Fabio did the whole machinery is _still_ opt-in. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No, he has his own versions of the systemd and sysvinit ebuilds which |
| 13 |
move some of the installation to non-standard places as part of this |
| 14 |
machinery, so it is not opt-in. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Also, there was an email on this thread showing that using |
| 17 |
init=/sbin/einit works, so I'm not seeing what mgorny's objections are. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
William |
Archives