Re: Interface of `shutdown', 'halt', ... programs
Dmitry Bogatov writes ("Interface of `shutdown', 'halt', ... programs"):
> Recently I asked for inclusion of 'runit-init' into init metapackage
> Pre-Depends: (#838480). Response, in particular mentioned, that
> since 'runit-init' does not provide 'halt', 'reboot' and other
> scripts, it would break things.
>
> Unfortunately, I did not received reply about following questions:
>
> - what exactly would break and what should I test? It is not clear for me,
> since I am fine without these scripts, running runit-init_2.1.2-8.
>
> - what exactly interface is expected from these scripts? For example,
> shutdown program is rather complex, involving timespecs, access control
> and tons of command line options, and, if I need to reimplement it (sigh),
> I would prefer to do as little, as possible.
Quite.
> It was quite misleadingly mentioned on #838480 about sysvinit-like
> system. Runit is not, and while it support /etc/init.d/ scripts as
> good, as sysvinit, they are still fallback method of managing
> services.
>
> Any suggestions?
Is it possible to use a pointyclicky desktoppy widgety thing to reboot
a system with runit ? I guess from your mails you use the command
line.
I think the reference to "sysvinit-like" from Michael Biebl is mainly
there because GNOME expects either that or systemd. In practice you
might find that the right answer is to implement enough of `shutdown'
to satisfy GNOME.
I doubt there are many non-human callers of shutdown that use all the
exciting options, and those that do exist will probably not change
very much.
I think if I were you I would try installing a system with runit and
GNOME, make enough of an emulation that the GNOME shutdown and reboot
functions work, and call that "done".
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: