On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 18:24 +0100, Gabriel C wrote: > Brrrrrrr. > 'with the sysvinit emulation shit based on runlevels* you don't need it > , *I said if you want a full based even one*. > This emulation fu** is *what* ununtu is running LOL!. Then again why to > hell use something > , *uses* the INIT|INIT STYLE WE DON'T WANT! brr brr brr
17:21 < Keybuk> right, we just replaced the stuff that was in inittab directly 17:21 < Keybuk> it doesn't make sense to *not* be backwards compatible with /etc/rc*.d 17:21 < Keybuk> we need to support that for most software to work without modification 17:21 < Keybuk> otherwise on day #1, we need to write upstart jobs for everything 17:22 < Keybuk> by supporting it, we can write upstart jobs one at a time (until they are all done) > > > > >> Pls don't tell me now *but it can be done using sysvinit* I know this > >> but the point is *we want to change sysvinit* and not replace by > >> something add sysvinit back ... > >> > > > > It's not a sysvinit hack... There is *NO* sysvinit code in there. Ok, it > > was started from sysvinit, but gradually it was replaced with better > > code. > > Whatever better code or not is a sysvinit *fork*. So uhh, InitNG is a fork of sysvinit? Minit is a fork of sysvinit? Runit is a fork of sysvinit? <insert init system here> is a fork of sysvinit? I don't think so... > > > Actually reading about upstart in detail really helps. This > > LugRadio episode might help - http://www.lugradio.org/episodes/61 - go > > to 57 minutes into it, the Upstart developer is talking there. > > > .... ... What? > >> And again just do it , I don't want flame about I just think a 'init > >> system' should be small , fast , ( not having weird depends ) , easy to > >> understand ( not only for devels , think on server admins as example ) , > >> of course is my opinion. > >> > > > > No weird depends, depends on glibc, that's all. > > In 'emulation modus' yes. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing that needs DBUS or Hal. The Upstart devel dislikes dbus anyway > > > > It's fast - at least, > > performs better than sysvinit here. > > I don't really care whatever foo_init boots 2 or 3 secs faster or > whatever not. > At last on ubuntu is *slow* as hell. That's because they're using the sysvinit compat stuff and have lots of uneeded stuff at boot > > > > Server admins can understand it > > easily > > We will see , I don't think so. Meh. Anyway, what does everyone else think? Thanks, Alex -- Alex Smith Frugalware Linux developer - http://www.frugalware.org _______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
