[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Definition of _boot_

* Vincent Bernat [2012-04-30 20:30 +0200]:
> OoO En  ce doux  début de matinée  du lundi  30 avril 2012,  vers 08:15,
> Svante Signell <svante.signell@telia.com> disait :
> >> I'm rather sure that he wants to define booting as part of what
> >> currently is done in /etc/rcS.d.  Configuring the network or mounting
> >> non-essential remote file systems wouldn't be part of this definition.
> >>
> >> Then he would state that these early tasks do not need events at all,
> >> and conclude that later tasks can be handled in event based userspace
> >> tools, but that the initial process that invokes these event based tools
> >> doesn't require events and thus can stay simple.
> > Nice summary, thanks. This is the whole idea behind defining boot...
> > Some people get it, others don't.
> Since your  boot definition  is mostly the  current initrd, you  seem to
> agree that the current init system could be replaced with something more
> current like upstart and systemd.

What you claim is not true.  If the system is up that far as his boot
definition would have implied, it would be easy for him to write
a simple shell script to do the rest or to install file-rc.  For the
rest of us, it would be easier to work around upgrade problems like the
ones udev's maintainer fixed for us for the last two releases.

Looks like sending a thread's summary before the thread started does not
end it ;)  Unless someone plans to write yet another init replacement or
to adapt an existent one, I think this discussion will not lead us to
anything helpful.


Reply to: