Re: init

[Jon Boden]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 07:09:35PM +0200, Christoph Egger wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Jon Boden  writes:
> > What are your plans for the future of init on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD? Are you 
> > going to continue with sysvinit for the time being?
> >
> > For the upcoming release of ubuntuBSD I'm thinking about using BusyBox
> > + OpenRC
> > (https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2012/03/using-busybox-with-openrc). Do you
> > think this is a good idea? Is there a particular reason you're staying
> > with sysvinit?
> 
> The OpenRC package on debian seems stalled. which means sysvinit is the
> one solution that works without further work. There's really not much
> more reason why we're still doing sysv. A working openrc package (even
> from ubuntu) to test the system certainly would be welcome.

Hi Christoph

On Ubuntu the original sysvinit package has become unusable so for ubuntuBSD we 
need a large patch to restore it: 
https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntubsd/ubuntubsd/patches-xenial/view/head:/sysvinit.diff

What's wrong with the current openrc package? It worked fine in my tests. I 
also managed to make it work with BusyBox Init, see 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827733 and 
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827718

-- 
Jon Boden

ubuntuBSD -- The power of FreeBSD kernel with familiarity of Ubuntu OS!

http://www.ubuntubsd.org/ -- https://twitter.com/ubuntuBSD

Re: init

[Christoph Egger]

Hi!

Jon Boden  writes:
> What are your plans for the future of init on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD? Are you 
> going to continue with sysvinit for the time being?
>
> For the upcoming release of ubuntuBSD I'm thinking about using BusyBox
> + OpenRC
> (https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2012/03/using-busybox-with-openrc). Do you
> think this is a good idea? Is there a particular reason you're staying
> with sysvinit?

The OpenRC package on debian seems stalled. which means sysvinit is the
one solution that works without further work. There's really not much
more reason why we're still doing sysv. A working openrc package (even
from ubuntu) to test the system certainly would be welcome.

  Christoph

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Robert Millan]

On 22/02/2014 03:32, Joel Lopes Da Silva wrote:
 I don't really know much more than that, sorry. I'm not a FreeBSD
 developer either. I'm just a guy who thinks launchd is a pretty awesome
 init system, and who would love to see it more widely used.

Well, our hands are pretty busy here. But if you want to help, you could
talk to them about their plans for adopting launchd and tell us the results.

-- 
Robert Millan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/53088ab0.4010...@debian.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Joel Lopes Da Silva]

Hi folks, 

I’m just a lambda user of Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, not a Debian Developer or
Maintainer. But if I could give you guys my 2 cts, I’d encourage you to
really consider launchd for this discussion. It’s a proven system, which
has been in use for many years in what’s arguably one of the most widely
used flavors of Unix-like OSes, since it powers every single Mac and iOS
device out there.

And fortunately it's all open source, under the Apache License Version
2.0.

Furthermore, if you Google some of these big names (launchd, OpenRC and
systemd), narrowing down the search results to wiki.freebsd.org, it will
be pretty clear that launchd seems to be only one that’s actually being
worked on by FreeBSD developers: https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd
I couldn’t find any similar page for the other contenders on the FreeBSD
wiki. 

Surely, using the same init system as the one that FreeBSD might use
someday will be nice for maintaining the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port in the
long run.

Cheers, 

-- 
Joel Lopes Da Silva


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140221190903.gb10...@gmail.com

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Robert Millan]

On 21/02/2014 19:09, Joel Lopes Da Silva wrote:
 Furthermore, if you Google some of these big names (launchd, OpenRC and
 systemd), narrowing down the search results to wiki.freebsd.org, it will
 be pretty clear that launchd seems to be only one that’s actually being
 worked on by FreeBSD developers: https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd
 I couldn’t find any similar page for the other contenders on the FreeBSD
 wiki. 
 
 Surely, using the same init system as the one that FreeBSD might use
 someday will be nice for maintaining the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port in the
 long run.

That's interesting to hear. Since we're forced to diverge from Debian GNU/Linux
on this, it'd certainly be helpful if we could synergize with FreeBSD.

I was silently hoping that FreeBSD might eventually adopt OpenRC if it gains
more traction. What do you know of FreeBSD project position regarding launchd?

You mentioned some pointers to the wiki which can be used as speculation, but
has this matter actually been proposed/discussed?

-- 
Robert Millan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5307bf67.1050...@debian.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Joel Lopes Da Silva]

On Friday, February 21, 2014, at 09:04 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
 On 21/02/2014 19:09, Joel Lopes Da Silva wrote:
  Furthermore, if you Google some of these big names (launchd, OpenRC and
  systemd), narrowing down the search results to wiki.freebsd.org, it will
  be pretty clear that launchd seems to be only one that’s actually being
  worked on by FreeBSD developers: https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd
  I couldn’t find any similar page for the other contenders on the FreeBSD
  wiki. 
  
  Surely, using the same init system as the one that FreeBSD might use
  someday will be nice for maintaining the Debian GNU/kFreeBSD port in the
  long run.
 
 That's interesting to hear. Since we're forced to diverge from Debian 
 GNU/Linux
 on this, it'd certainly be helpful if we could synergize with FreeBSD.
 
 I was silently hoping that FreeBSD might eventually adopt OpenRC if it gains
 more traction. What do you know of FreeBSD project position regarding launchd?
 
 You mentioned some pointers to the wiki which can be used as speculation, but
 has this matter actually been proposed/discussed?

I don't really know much more than that, sorry. I'm not a FreeBSD
developer either. I'm just a guy who thinks launchd is a pretty awesome
init system, and who would love to see it more widely used.

All I know about the FreeBSD launchd project is actually on that page of
the wiki. To summarize it:

  - FreeBSD apparently sponsored a Google Summer of Code project to port
launchd to FreeBSD a while ago;
  - this last December, someone named R Tyler Croy announced his intent
to re-open this project to port launchd to FreeBSD:
http://unethicalblogger.com/2013/12/03/scratchiest-neckbeard-freebsd-x200.html
  - it appears that he might actually be a FreeBSD developer since he
has his own page with an @freebsd.org address in the FreeBSD wiki:
https://wiki.freebsd.org/RTylerCroy
  - there's a fair amount of activity in the openlaunchd repository he
opened in GitHub: https://github.com/rtyler/openlaunchd

But again, I think it's pretty telling that searching for OpenRC in
the FreeBSD wiki doesn't yield any results.

I think your best bet to learn more about the effort is to try to get in
touch with R Tyler. There's even a chat room on freenode for this
project.

Thanks for considering this!

-- 
Joel Lopes Da Silva


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140222033230.ga15...@gmail.com

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Michael Banck]

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 02:47:14PM +, Robert Millan wrote:
 On 14/02/2014 18:46, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
  Well, we have an announcement today from Canonical - AIUI Upstart will
  be discontinued after Ubuntu 14.04 LTS and they will switch to systemd:
  http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316
 
 I'm not familiar with Ubuntu politics. Is everyone in line with that decision?

About upstart as default, my understanding is that (i) defunding upstart
development will likely make that question moot cause the Ubuntu
community is very probably not interested in putting up the work now
that everybody else switches, (ii) I saw statements from other technical
board members before Mark's announcement that dropping upstart as
default is likely, now that Debian is moving to systemd for the Linux
ports.

The more interesting question is whether upstart will be continued as a
community project and/or supported as an alternative in Debian/Ubuntu.
Not sure about that.


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20140217165630.ga30...@raptor.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Robert Millan]

On 14/02/2014 18:46, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
 Well, we have an announcement today from Canonical - AIUI Upstart will
 be discontinued after Ubuntu 14.04 LTS and they will switch to systemd:
 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316

I'm not familiar with Ubuntu politics. Is everyone in line with that decision?

-- 
Robert Millan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52ff7df2.1040...@debian.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Robert Millan]

On 29/01/2014 09:26, Petr Salinger wrote:
 1. stay with sysvinit
 2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
 3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
 4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
 5. further discussion

 Please rank the above putting your preferred option first, as per
 Debian's usual Condorcet voting system.  This is totally non-binding,
 I'm most interested in hearing people's ideas, questions, or the reasons
 for their choices.
 
 I would add also
 6. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise stay with 
 sysvinit
 
 My preference is
 
 6-5-1,2,4-3

We have less options now ;-)

I'm a bit afraid that even if sysvinit itself stays mostly fine, the scripts 
written for
it could turn into a bunch of bitrot.

And AFAICS we may be able to use Upstart some time in the future but this 
doesn't seem
possible right now.

What is the current status of OpenRC? Is it usable?

-- 
Robert Millan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb50d4.1010...@debian.org

Re: [Fwd: Re: Init system for non-Linux ports]

[Steven Chamberlain]

On 12/02/14 12:04, Svante Signell wrote:
 I fear that it is currently broken since one of the latest patches. Do
 you have a (scrappable) pre-installed image I can download, ala:
 http://people.debian.org/~sthibault/hurd-i386/

Yes, Aurelien Jarno has kindly made these:

 http://blog.aurel32.net/153
 http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/qemu/

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb63f3.1030...@pyro.eu.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Steven Chamberlain]

On 12/02/14 10:45, Robert Millan wrote:
 I'm a bit afraid that even if sysvinit itself stays mostly fine, the scripts 
 written for
 it could turn into a bunch of bitrot.

There are a few reasons to keep sysvinit scripts maintained for jessie:
1. for smoother upgrades from wheezy
2. in order to backport jessie packages to wheezy
3. for non-Linux (or non-systemd) ports

So ports are not the only reason.  And yet all of the above points still
apply to ports;  we'd have to support sysvinit even if we went with
something else.

I don't think it matters much what we choose, but seems we'd want to
make use of legacy sysvinit compatibility - write very few scripts in
specific formats (e.g. OpenRC runscripts / Upstart jobs).  We probably
have right up until freeze to make a preference, and perhaps by then
there will be more than one fully-working init system.

GNU/Hurd porters already said they aim to maintain sysvinit scripts:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2014/01/msg00051.html

And there are plenty of GNU/Linux users who will want to run systems
without systemd.  (individuals, derivatives, quite possibly Google).

Thinking ahead, package maintainers won't have such need to support
sysvinit for jessie+1 so that's when we'll really have problems.  Having
something like OpenRC or Upstart might allow to add/override broken init
scripts with native/declarative ones.  Perhaps by then we'll have new
ways to convert init scripts or generate them from metalanguage;  or
built-in support for reading each others' formats.

 And AFAICS we may be able to use Upstart some time in the future but this 
 doesn't seem
 possible right now.

We could initially ask the maintainer to apply Dmitri's patches and try
to keep it building on kfreebsd.  And just keep it around for people to
play around with and possibly get it fully working.  IIRC it runs, but
will need early boot scripts re-writing, equivalent to /etc/rcS.d/

 What is the current status of OpenRC? Is it usable?

Pretty good as I recall;  it was very easy to test using jails.

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb647f.3090...@pyro.eu.org

[Fwd: Re: Init system for non-Linux ports]

[Svante Signell]

 Forwarded Message 
From: Svante Signell svante.sign...@gmail.com
To: debian-h...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Init system for non-Linux ports
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 13:02:45 +0100

On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 10:45 +, Robert Millan wrote:
 On 29/01/2014 09:26, Petr Salinger wrote:

 What is the current status of OpenRC? Is it usable?

I fear that it is currently broken since one of the latest patches. Do
you have a (scrappable) pre-installed image I can download, ala:
http://people.debian.org/~sthibault/hurd-i386/




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1392206649.10315.16.ca...@s1499.it.kth.se

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Robert Millan]

On 12/02/2014 12:09, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
 There are a few reasons to keep sysvinit scripts maintained for jessie:
 1. for smoother upgrades from wheezy
 2. in order to backport jessie packages to wheezy
 3. for non-Linux (or non-systemd) ports
 
 So ports are not the only reason.  And yet all of the above points still
 apply to ports;  we'd have to support sysvinit even if we went with
 something else.

If we have to support it anyway, is it really worth spending effort on
Upstart/OpenRC for Jessie?

IMHO it'd be safer to wait and see where things go. For example, are Upstart
developers serious about portability or was this just an experiment? Is
OpenRC going to be adopted by FreeBSD and/or other BSDs?

-- 
Robert Millan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb67d2.4000...@debian.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Steven Chamberlain]

On 12/02/14 12:23, Robert Millan wrote:
 If we have to support it anyway, is it really worth spending effort on
 Upstart/OpenRC for Jessie?

Right, sysvinit is a viable and easy option for jessie;  having any
other init systems working is a bonus.

At least we know now that we need to concentrate on maintaining sysvinit
scripts.

Although, come jessie+1, I wonder how upgrades will be handled, if
sysvinit scripts go away.  Maybe it is preferable to have some new init
system *already* in place, as default in jessie.  But it's difficult to
predict so far ahead.

 IMHO it'd be safer to wait and see where things go.

I agree, a lot could change now that GNU/Linux has chosen systemd, and
we have plenty of time.  In particular I wonder what Ubuntu will do, and
if Upstart has a future at all.  The still-ongoing GNOME/logind issue
may have some impact on that.

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb6bb7.5020...@pyro.eu.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Robert Millan]

On 12/02/2014 12:40, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
 Although, come jessie+1, I wonder how upgrades will be handled, if
 sysvinit scripts go away.

Maybe Pre-Depends. Or maybe have written instructions to install
the new init by hand, like we often do for kernels.

Or maybe backward compat? I hear some of the new init implementations
support SysV.

I think having one or more replacements in good shape would be nice, but
I doubt we'll be in trouble because of this.

-- 
Robert Millan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb74a1.8070...@debian.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Steven Chamberlain]

On 12/02/14 13:18, Robert Millan wrote:
 Or maybe backward compat? I hear some of the new init implementations
 support SysV.

SysV init scripts?

I thought this was obvious, or maybe I misunderstand what you mean.
*All* of the init systems that were discussed by the TC, even systemd
(for now), can use existing SysV init scripts.

This is important to know, because some (perhaps most) packages may not
bother creating systemd unit files at all for jessie, and continue to
fully maintain the SysV init scripts they already have.

And adopting any new init system for jessie is made considerably easier
by using the same init scripts as sysvinit.  SysV init scripts can be
overridden by creating a new runscript/job of the same name.

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52fb7974.60...@pyro.eu.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Dimitri John Ledkov]

On 12 February 2014 12:23, Robert Millan r...@debian.org wrote:
 On 12/02/2014 12:09, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
 There are a few reasons to keep sysvinit scripts maintained for jessie:
 1. for smoother upgrades from wheezy
 2. in order to backport jessie packages to wheezy
 3. for non-Linux (or non-systemd) ports

 So ports are not the only reason.  And yet all of the above points still
 apply to ports;  we'd have to support sysvinit even if we went with
 something else.

 If we have to support it anyway, is it really worth spending effort on
 Upstart/OpenRC for Jessie?

 IMHO it'd be safer to wait and see where things go. For example, are Upstart
 developers serious about portability or was this just an experiment? Is
 OpenRC going to be adopted by FreeBSD and/or other BSDs?


Yes, a few upstart upstream developers are interested in porting to
kFreebsd, and later to Freebsd.
If packages follow the current policy, there shouldn't be much
additional work once upstart is supported on those platforms.
Integration-wise, there will be needed to inspect and/or tweak a few
jobs where things don't match up (e.g. udev - devd events).
We didn't start on Hurd yet.
In the best interest of Debian/kFreeBSD, it is probably best to stick
with sysv-init as default for jessie, and have alternatives fully
available by feature freeze such that a switch can be made for
jessie+1.
This is simply because no init alternatives exist on !Debian/Linux in
squeeze already, and e.g. on Debian/Linux upstart/systemd already
exist as working alternatives on squeeze systems.
Out of all the open-source operating systems, i'm yet to see one that
introduce new init and switch to it by default in a single upgrade.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/canbhlughvwru+8cvawtrgzjj5_p_qboke_rreqtnp1m6onu...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Petr Salinger]

1. stay with sysvinit
2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
5. further discussion

Please rank the above putting your preferred option first, as per
Debian's usual Condorcet voting system.  This is totally non-binding,
I'm most interested in hearing people's ideas, questions, or the reasons
for their choices.


I would add also
6. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise stay with 
sysvinit

My preference is

6-5-1,2,4-3

Petr


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lnx.2.00.1401291025160.15...@contest.felk.cvut.cz

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Christoph Egger]

Hi!

Robert Millan r...@debian.org writes:
 [ 3 ] 1. stay with sysvinit
 [ 3 ] 2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
 [ 3 ] 3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
 [ 1 ] 4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
 [ 2 ] 5. further discussion

Petr Salinger petr.salin...@seznam.cz writes:
 I would add also
 6. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise stay with 
 sysvinit

 My preference is

 6-5-1,2,4-3

I agree we should follow Linux *iff* doing so is feasible. Apart from
that I haven't put enough time into details to really have a founded
opinion there

= (6=4) 5 (1=2=3)

Robert Millan r...@debian.org writes:
 Btw is the tech-ctte going to force both ports to use the same option? This 
 might
 have a significant effect on options 3 and 4, depending on the viability of 
 Upstart
 on the Hurd (which I'm totally ignorant of).

I'm the tech-ctte will even consider deciding anything for !linux
without a really good reason. As long as we (the kfreebsd people) and
the hurd people each find something that works for us we should be
fine. The only thing from the tech-ctte / GR discussions that might
affect us is, if the project decides to drop support for some init
system.

  Christoph


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mwiff3ea@mitoraj.siccegge.de

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Jeff Epler]

I'm only a kFreeBSD user and don't have any official standing within the
Debian project, but all the same my preferences are

614253

where 6. is the proposed alternative to switch to Upstart if Linux uses
it, otherwise sysvinit.

Jeff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140129160233.gb12...@unpythonic.net

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[brunomaximom]

Em 2014-01-28 20:31, Steven Chamberlain escreveu:

Hi everyone,

What init system would we like to use by default on the non-Linux 
ports

for jessie?

I hope this question is really as straightforward as it looks, and that
we might come to some general agreement much more quickly than the
tech-ctte bug!

Here are the options I can think of - but let me know if you want
something not represented here:

1. stay with sysvinit
2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
5. further discussion

Please rank the above putting your preferred option first, as per
Debian's usual Condorcet voting system.  This is totally non-binding,
I'm most interested in hearing people's ideas, questions, or the 
reasons

for their choices.

Thanks!
Regards,


4 or 1...a good idea would be openlaunchd...if Debian adopt openlaunchd, 
would be the first GNU distro to have the Apple init system.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/8b33a374cb9d9e9600f837d123f9c...@openmailbox.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Robert Millan]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 28/01/2014 23:31, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
 Here are the options I can think of - but let me know if you want
 something not represented here:
 
 1. stay with sysvinit
 2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
 3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
 4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
 5. further discussion
 
 Please rank the above putting your preferred option first, as per
 Debian's usual Condorcet voting system.  This is totally non-binding,
 I'm most interested in hearing people's ideas, questions, or the reasons
 for their choices.

[ 3 ] 1. stay with sysvinit
[ 3 ] 2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
[ 3 ] 3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
[ 1 ] 4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
[ 2 ] 5. further discussion

Btw is the tech-ctte going to force both ports to use the same option? This 
might
have a significant effect on options 3 and 4, depending on the viability of 
Upstart
on the Hurd (which I'm totally ignorant of).

- -- 
Robert Millan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLoNHAACgkQC19io6rUCv+gIwCeMIIt66QpJEE+EnmqvXJM0zvc
rsYAn28O23lAlEkLtoVZAiw/OUj8xx43
=HCd6
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52e83470.4080...@debian.org

Re: Init system for non-Linux ports

[Steven Chamberlain]

On 28/01/14 22:31, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
 1. stay with sysvinit

I know that would be the least work, but I think we should take the
opportunity to switch now to one of the modern init systems.  Some
package maintainers specifically expressed that they don't want to
maintain SysV init scripts for much longer;  any other init system at
least gives them one alternate syntax.

 2. switch to OpenRC unconditionally
 3. switch to Upstart unconditionally
 4. switch to Upstart only if Linux uses it by default, otherwise OpenRC
 5. further discussion

My preferences at the moment would be: 2 4 1 3 5

I really appreciate the recent work toward porting libnih and Upstart,
but unless Debian was *fully* behind it I don't think we'd gain much for
the additional complexity.  The event model seems a key difference to
me.  It sounds better suited to laptops, portable devices and
hot-plugging, whereas for now I think the non-Linux ports still need the
robustness and simplicity of a traditional dependency model, even if it
lacks speed or some special features.

OpenRC is *very* simple code, and BSD-licensed, which I think we could
more easily extend to our needs.  It works almost well enough already to
boot GNU/kFreeBSD, and also inside BSD jails.  I've read that it is
built and somewhat usable on GNU/Hurd, though I don't know how much more
work would be still needed (probably rewrite of the early rcS.d scripts).

And whichever one is used for the jessie release, it maybe won't hurt to
keep the other one around, built and available to play around with, but
unsupported.

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature