On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:44:56PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:19:12PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote: > > Then you can provide any other alternative definition of "init > > system", but if there is no procedure that does those things for you, > > then you have to manually do those tasks, at each reboot. In that case > > the 12-lines init might just spawn a shell > > Why would you even need a separate process to spawn the shell? /bin/bash is > a perfectly capable init that can reap zombies, start processes, do any > interactive tasks, or be automated (.bashrc, trap EXIT, etc).
...exactly, and that's why I remain convinced that writing a shell is actually a far more instructive exercise than writing a 12-lines init that calls rc to do all the work... > > Specifying init=/bin/bash via grub on the cmdline is a common rescue > technique for systems with a broken init. Guess what init implementation > needs to be rescued this way most often... > That's too harsh of you, Adam :D HND KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ] _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
