Re: Time to package simpleinit?
One big problem about Richard Gooch's simpleinit is that it is
functionally very different from the standard systme V init scripts.
Specifically, he always assumes that runlevel n+1 is always a superset
of runlevel n, and that in order to get to runlevel n+1, you must
first start up all of the services at runlevel n.
Runlevel 6 has been used for "reboot" since time immemorial, and in
fact is documented in Debian Policy as such. Simpleinit can't support
> * The /etc/init.d/ scripts would need to add "need otherscript" (and
> sometimes "provide something"). As I think it is a very bad idea to edit
> these scripts in our post-install (and try to reedit them in
> pre-remove)) one would have to file bugs agains packages with
> /etc/init.d scripts. Will that be sucessfull? How cooperative will the
> maintainers of these script be?
And just adding "need otherscript" and "provide otherscript" will
break compatibility on systems that don't use simpleinit, unless the
system V initscript package is enhanced to provide no-op functions
which provide "need" and "provide".
> * Is there even interest in simpleinit by others than me? I would also
> need someone to ask if I have problems with sysvinit or similar, and I
> would like to know who thinks he is capable of helping me? Are there
> people that might help me when it comes to file bug against packages
> with /etc/init.d scripts?
Simpleinit is unfortunately completely incompatible with System V
init. So at the very least, Debian Policy would have to be amended to
support simpleinit, and I'm not really convinced it's really worth it
for Debian to support two fundamentally different init script systems.
Not only are the init scripts different, but the interface which is
exported to the system administrator, and what can and can't be
implemented using simpleinit, is completely different.
For this reason, I consider simpleinit to be a failure and a mistake.
With a little bit more work, for example, the traditional system V
runlevels could be implemented, and the dependencies could have been
implemented in a structured comment block, for full backwards
compatibility. I've been told that SuSE's init scripts system does
this, while also providing full automatic dynamic dependency
management, ala simpleinit. I haven't had a chance to look at it, but
everything I've heard about it makes it sound far better than