Re: RFC: OpenRC as Init System for Debian
On 04/26/12 01:49, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 25, Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> in the last months there have been many discussions about init systems,
>> especially systemd. The current state seems to make no one really happy
> Not true. systemd and upstart do not make /everybody/ happy, but nothing
> does.
Having read the source of both (and how much I laughed!) ...
They do have some mostly good ideas, but ... no thanks. Ideas are cheap,
execution matters.
>
>> I'd like to ask you to evaluate OpenRC as candidate to replace the "old"
>> have-always-been-there sysvinit/insserv init scripts in Debian.
> What we need is an event-driven init system, anything else will just
> make us waste more time.
Waste time where how? and what does "event-driven" mean?
(and how does udev *not* do that already? especially if one assumes that
init scripts have dependencies properly expressed)
[sidenote: a context-free response like "anything else will just waste
time" is the fastest way to get emotional responses that can be
misunderstood so that you can randomly flame everyone and everything.
Not helpful, but kinda fun]
>
>> What we offer you is a modern, slim, userfriendly init system with
> Sorry, no. upstart, systemd or the Apple thing are modern init systems,
> this one is not.
Elaborate please. A random statement like that doesn't allow informed
debates
> But I agree that it would have been nice 5 years ago.
>
Well, Gentoo has had OpenRC for about 5 years, and the predecessor
(which was basically the same, but pure shell scripts whereas openrc has
some bits in C) was written just over a decade ago.
If y'all didn't suffer so much from NIH and "everyone else is silly" you
could have planned the switch 5 years ago and thus wouldn't have
anything to complain about now ;)
Oh well. Your decision, I've enjoyed having named runlevels and such
things for so long that I still wonder how everyone else took a decade
to even think about it ...
Take care (and try to be less passive-agressive in emails),
Patrick
Reply to: