On 23/05/13 at 12:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 04:53 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - Neither systemd nor upstart are likely to be ported to kfreebsd soon,
> > as they both rely on many Linux-specific features and interfaces.
>
> Though it should be easy enough to port OpenRC to kFreeBSD and Hurd,
> once it completes its support for the current init.d scripts. You
> completely forgot that option.
>
> The only thing that worries me is the cgroup thing, but probably it
> should be possible to fallback to .pid files in such case (in an
> automated way).
I have the (possibly wrong) impression that OpenRC is less advanced
technically than systemd and upstart, and lacks many of their advantages
For example, according to https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391945
which is linked from
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems, parallel
boot does not work due to problems in dependency handling.
I also understand that OpenRC does not replace sysvinit, but instead
is an additional layer on top of it (for example, sysvinit stays PID 1).
Also, you wrote:
On 14/05/13 at 17:54 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> I do think that restarting crashed daemons is a nice feature,
> yes. Though I believe OpenRC has this feature too (I have no
> time to check for that fact right now, but I think I remember
> reading it somewhere).
According to http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems,
OpenRC does not have this feature ("No" in "Keeping daemons alive").
I'm not saying that OpenRC should be excluded right now. I'm open to be
proven wrong. :) And actually, I'd recommend that once you are
reasonably sure that OpenRC is a viable alternative, you follow the same
path as for other init systems (policy support, explore how it can
co-exist in the archive, explore how we could transition to it, etc.)
Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature