On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Wojciech Puchar <woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote: > > actually i am happy with current system, but maybe others. > > My most important ideas are: > > - any new system should not be more complex - ability to keep all flags and > main config in single file (/etc/rc.conf) must persist. I don't want mess. > And for sure not only me. > > - once again - the less files, the better. > > Some time ago i had to use linux (fortunately no longer needed). As i don't > use it normally i just took debian installer that i remembered it WAS > usable. > > After seeing the incredible complexity of /etc structure, not just rc > scripts, i deleted most of it and put startup sequence in single file. > > It was plain horror.
I think our current system for OpenRC is pretty elegant. Initscripts go in /etc/init.d. Runlevels are defined as directories in /etc/runlevels. The default runlevel is /etc/runlevels/default. To add a service to a runlevel, you type "rc-update add <service> <runlevelname>". To start/stop all services according to runlevel, you type "rc". To switch runlevels, you type "rc <runlevel>", like "rc mobile". > yes i am. but that joke is clear suggestion that we have already tens of > thousands better or worse made ports! Well, if ports maintenance is the much bigger problem we can also look at coordinating efforts there in the future. > if you have idea how to improve existing rc.d AND make ports working as is > then go on. I think that if FreeBSD used OpenRC (maybe initially with a compatibility layer for existing initscripts) then it would make it easier for us all to transition to a compatible ports format, since we could use the same ports initscripts. Then, an nginx port could contain an initscript that could work on both FreeBSD and Gentoo/Funtoo Linux. This could definitely open up the possibility of collaborating more easily in the future on ports maintenance. But collaborating on ports is such a big topic, and initscript compatibility is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of things. Is the maintenance of ports a huge issue for FreeBSD, and would you be interested in looking into working with Gentoo and Funtoo on sharing build scripts? > For me it is OK. You know, I often wonder why so much effort in the Linux world is spent on the first few seconds of a system's uptime. So I definitely understand and appreciate that you are not ready to make reckless changes to your boot process. >From my perspective, the upstart/launchd/systemd/udev mess in Linux is ugly, and we are promoting OpenRC as a sane alternative. So it helps us to have other distributions and operating systems using it. Because for Gentoo and Funtoo, OpenRC *is* our standard design, and we want to promote something more "normal" than the other stuff coming from Linux. It helps us to fight that battle when we have a broader base of users. I think that is one of the motivations of reaching out to FreeBSD -- the Gentoo and Funtoo user-base is more aligned with the sensibilities of FreeBSD than the other Linux distros moving to upstart/launchd, etc. I think that may be a major benefit of FreeBSD using OpenRC -- that you will be treated as a respected and listened-to member of the OpenRC community. I don't know if you have been following some of the politics in Linux recently, but a lot of this service management stuff has been almost shoved down our throats with the justification that it's necessary for Linux dominating the desktop. (!) Best Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
