Hi, Am Mit, 2003-01-29 um 08.36 schrieb Miles Bader: > I wish debian would switch to something a bit more modern and less > bizarre than the sysv init (but more featureful than the traditional BSD > one). I used LFS before debian, an I really liked the simpleinit scheme used there. It is made by R. Gooche (or somthing like that, I can't remember names), the guy that made devfs and is packaged in util-linux. It works about like this: You only have _one_ directory with scripts, and no symlinks. Init runs each script one by another. To get this in an orderly fashion, scripts call "need $dependency" before they do anything. So for example "net-filesystems" would have the line "need network" to call "need". Need checks if "network" is running (this is by asking init somehow I think), and it not, it runs it. This way you get a real depency tree. The advantage is that this is a very flexible.way. Since the dependency is a regular command, you can put it in "if"s or use variables. For example this way you can "emulate" runlevels by calling a script "runlevel.1" and just put all the "need $service"es is there that should go with this runlevel. You start this by passing "runlevel.1" as a command line argument to init. (I think you can set init up in a way that it starts "runlevel.$1" so you can call "init 1" for runlevel 1). I am not sure if this is implemented by now, but proper rollback support with reverse dependecy checking was planned. I think this would be a great way for Debian: It is flexible, simple and powerful. Could others tell us about their experience with simpleinit? Joachim Breitner -- Joachim Breitner e-Mail: email@example.com | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: firstname.lastname@example.org | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z? Terrorists can take my life. Only the government can take my freedom.
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil