On 08/23/10 19:26, Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:05 +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote:
>> Le lundi 05 juillet 2010 à 08:57 +0000, Duncan a écrit :
>> [lots of stuff about bashisms and posix]
>>> So let's stabilize OpenRC and be done with it, and /then/ we can debate
>>> where we want to go from there.
>> YES, let's get it stable.
>> However please consider not re-adding bashisms and/or not make it less
>> POSIX shell compliant than it already is at light speed. It is a great
>> thing that openrc tries to achieve and allows more use of openrc than
>> basic desktop/server gentoo usage (think embedded and other distros).
>> At least one other distro did this move a while ago (debian) and I don't
>> think they will go back. Seeing they are also moving to a dependency
>> based init system, they probably could just run a fork of openrc (for
>> their init scripts are not exactly compatible with what we do).
> Other distributions are going one step further and are going for
> shell-free boot. We should follow that lead.
That sounds like a really confused bad idea to me.
At some point you will have to execute a program with a pre-setup
environment and passing some arguments.
You could, of course, hack that together manually. It tends to be quite
a bit of work to get everything set up right and it's lots of code
you'll have to maintain.
Or you just let a shell handle it. Does most of the things
automatically, has a pretty low memory and startup overhead, and it
tends to be quite human-readable.
... why would I want to remove a stable, efficient, known-good solution
that does what you'd expect it to do and replace it with a new thingy
that doesn't provide all the features, is harder to debug etc. etc.? I
just don't see any *advantage* from it apart from saying "OMG HAZ NEW
(and OpenRC is by far the fastest init script manager I've seen.
Performance is really not a good argument against it in this case ...)