On Thu, 1 Jan 2015 10:22:46 -0800 Isaac Dunham <ibid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 09:35:31AM -0500, stephen Turner wrote: > > while doing some searches on scripting i was reminded about > > "service" and noticed it wasn't in toybox. Is this a oversight or > > not in intended feature/possible post 1.0. > > service(8) is part of the rc scripts, of which there are more variants > than there are of init(8). > It makes little sense to include it in toybox when the only init we > have is oneit; even when init gets out of pending, implementing > service in toybox would be hard-coding a requirement about how the rc > scripts work. We certainly couldn't implement the rc scripts in > toybox, since they are scripts. That's not entirely true. Many years ago I wrote an implementation of runlevel/init.d/SYS V init applets for busybox, aiming for LSB compliance. It included the ability for the actual "scripts" themselves to be written in any language, and included several ones written in C as busybox applets. These init "scripts" would just be symlinks to busybox. This is in fact compliant with the LSB specification. If I remember correctly, it includes most of the good stuff systemd claims, fast boot if all/most of the "scripts" are written in C, dependency tracking, parallel "script" running, etc. Rob hasn't decided yet how to tackle this sort of thing, other than his oneit toy, which is a very basic init system. I hope that when he does tackle it, "scripts" written in C as part of toybox would be supported. It's likely bit rotted horribly, but for the curious - https://sourceforge.net/projects/urunlevel/ I'd be happy to port it to toybox. -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
