| 1 |
On 06/22/2013 12:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> After talking with WilliamH yesterday, I have this opinion: |
| 3 |
> - Playing with /sbin/init (instead of /sbin/einit) has two interesting |
| 4 |
> advantages: |
| 5 |
> 1. For example, I now have init=/sbin/e4rat-preload in my grub.conf, if |
| 6 |
> I do a typo, it would fallback to /sbin/init. If /sbin/init is provided |
| 7 |
> by sysvinit, people running other init providers could have problems. |
| 8 |
> This wouldn't occur if /sbin/init has been changed to use desired init |
| 9 |
> system. |
| 10 |
> 2. Tools like e4rat or bootchart launch /sbin/init, if I switch to |
| 11 |
> systemd, I would need to edit separate configuration files for each tool |
| 12 |
> to point to new init. This wouldn't occur if we "play" with /sbin/init |
| 13 |
> => we would only change init in one place |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> - I have two doubts: |
| 16 |
> 1. Why do we need a wrapper instead of changing symlinks? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So once I'm not busy playing with pixels and hw accels I would implement |
| 19 |
addons support in the wrapper (so bootchart and e4rat would just ran by |
| 20 |
the init wrapper) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> 2. Why Fabio chose to move sysvinit to subdirectories... wouldn't be |
| 23 |
> much simpler to simply rename /sbin/init to /sbin/sysvinit? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I prefer /bin/init but any place would fit (and should be configurable |
| 26 |
anyway) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
lu |
Archives