On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:21:25 +0200 Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013 10:58:23 +0200 > Robert David <robert.david.pub...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Increased complexity is never safer. And a wrapper means the > > > additional complexity gets there every boot. And considering how > > > the discussion goes, the wrapper will grow openrc-size in a few > > > months.. > > > > I agree with this. But changing symlinks is not as easy on running > > system (since it can cause inconsistence during rebooot). I think > > that safest way not using wrapper is to stop all services and keep > > only mounted /, than change things (symlinks,configuration update) > > and reboot. > > > > Thus this "eselect init" will let the user confirm and then trigger > > reboot. I do not think that users will change init all the time, > > thus make it better safe and more complex in this change is better > > than check and wrap in all the boots. > > > > Otherwise interesting is preinit handler in OpenWrt: > > http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/process.boot > > http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/howto/notuci.config#etcpreinit > > http://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/techref/preinit_mount > > In other words, if you go for the symlink approach you're just moving > complexity to your system instead of into the boot; I don't see why a > wrapper would grow to openrc size, that's just a bold exaggeration. Newer say that wrapper will grow openrc size, and also dont know why it would be bad. The point is somewhere else. I really dont know how many user will switch inits and how many of them will do this regularly. But the wrapper will be executed every boot. So even a tiny mistake can produce booting problems even for those who did not wanted to change anything in init process. On the other hand mistake in some system process will affect only those who would actually switching. It is only calculation of possible risks. I also did not say it must be done the reboot way I mentioned, this is only and different point what can be though about. > > I'd rather have a clean wrapper that just works than an unclean way to > cover the reboot madness that comes along; forcing a reboot, really? > I do not see point not forcing reboot when I'm switching init, or let say suggesting. When you update your kernel config, rebuild and install you also can stay working, but you have to be prepared to have nonworking modules that was not inserted before.
