Hi Laszlo !

>That is not much of a difficulty today. Systemd can probably do
>this for one.

Not everybody like to use systemd ... I hate it and will NEVER
use it on a system of mine!

>The main concern is not whether or not it is easy. It could be
>easy the same way to put it into the source code. The problem is
>that people keep reinventing the same in different projects.
>That is a sign of something not going well in my opinion. I am
>not sure what much code you are speaking of. Reading a simple
>config file in should be the matter of few lines (in C, at
>least).

... but the running daemon need to know when to read the file.

Reading info only on startup makes not much sense in your term, a
script may read the config and put it in command line. Done, and
so simple.

... in any other case there need to be code to tell the daemon
the right time to (re)read the config and (re)configure it's
behavior, which is much more difficult than just a few lines of
reading a file. Have you ever done this?

>It is not a good intention to keep things small just for the
>sake of being small.

One of the primary goals of Busybox was, to have a SMALL code
space for systems with less resources. IMO for this it's
important to ask before adding extra code ... and it's more than
just a few lines of reading a file (see above).


>Currently, I believe most of the cases will be when ntpd is run
>as a daemon and not a one-shot process. You could hard code a
>default value, but yet, the end users would like to configure it
>via some easy configurable means, not messing with init script
>internals, etc, IMHO.

Put NTP peer address in a config file, let your init script pick
this file and put it in command line. What's wrong with this?
Average user just needs to know how to put peer address in a
file. Why do we need to blow up an otherwise small daemon with
this config file handling stuff? ... just to configure a single
peer name?

--
Harald
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Reply via email to