On 6 July 2010 21:25, Sebastian Plotz <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 20:39 +0100 schrieb Ken Moffat: >> On 6 July 2010 18:50, Sebastian Plotz <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace >> > Sysvinit with Upstart ... >> > >> > Here are some points for discussion: >> >
> > Yes of course, saving boot time is an important point of Upstart. But I > think that the system actually won't boot faster if we're using the old > bootscripts (I don't know any timings). Well, if you have a watch with a second hand or a seconds display, you can try building two systems (for *your* definition of how much or how little is contained within a system, in particular what services are started). Then, try booting each of them several times and take an average. Yes, I know that only resolves to about 1 second, and a stop-watch would be better, but I think it will give enough information for an early stage review. You also get to find out if there are oddities about how the new dependencies are built (e.g. do they have to pull in a shed load of other packages that we don't build). You are the person suggesting a change. I'm trying to persuade you to do the leg work and produce figures to explain why it is beneficial. Generally, saying "almost everyone else does it now" is not an adequate reason to persuade LFS to change. > > My idea was, that we're using the scripts for an unspecified time. After > that, they may be replaced with event based jobs. > > Another point is, that the event based jobs are shorter than the > scripts. So I think that they are easier to maintain. --> please correct > me, if I'm wrong > You talk about replacing the current bootscripts with "event based jobs". I have no idea what this means. At the moment, if I add in a new package to my own builds which needs something started in certain runlevels, I take the template and edit it. If we were using these "event based jobs", what would I have to know when starting a new service ? This may all be as clear as day to you, but to some of us here you might as well be speaking in gibberish because we don't understand the practical changes. Maintenance of the main part of the LFS bootscripts doesn't seem to be required very often, in fact looking at the current and previous releases (ignoring contrib/) it's only udev that needed changes. But, since I've no idea how these event based jobs would look, it's hard for me to say that you are either right or wrong. Further - at the moment I can, if I wish, start in a particular run level, but you say that run levels will disappear. There is only one "dyed in the wool" run level that particularly matters (I assume you can still reboot and shut down in the normal ways) - run level 1 or single user mode. Do your alternative method(s) continue to support that ? ĸen, still not understanding the details of what you are suggesting. -- After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!" -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
