On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:39:59AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-06-20, o godz. 15:56:09 > William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:16:36PM +0200, Fabio Erculiani wrote: > > > There is a new version of eselect-init in the systemd-love overlay to > > > play with. > > > The new version saw the following major changes: > > > > > > - the /sbin/init (aka the symlink that eselect-init handles) can be > > > changed to whatever one wants through make.conf [1] (this is a compile > > > time option, as documented in the eclass) > > > > Why do we need to mess with /sbin/init at all? > > Yes, we do because we don't want sysvinit randomly getting run > as fallback and messing with our systems.
I don't understand what you are saying here. If eselect-init installs the wrapper as /sbin/einit, we don't have to touch /sbin/init at all, then, the only thing someone would have to do is to add an entry to their boot loader with init=/sbin/einit on the kcl to use it. > > I like the suggestion that came up here on the list a while back, have > > the eselect init module install its own symlink at, say, /sbin/einit. > > You would still have to have the user edit their boot loader > > configuration file one time if they want to use this, but this makes it > > completely opt-in. > > Plus hacking kernel sources to disable /sbin/init fallback. No, there is no reason we would have to hack anything in the kernel sources. William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
