Dependency-based init scripts (was Re: djb utilities)
dagmar.wants at nospam.com
Tue May 6 11:22:18 PDT 2003
On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 17:12, Gregory Davis wrote:
> Stefan Krah wrote:
> > * "Michael A. Peters" <mpeters at mac.com> wrote:
> >> To clarify my view on this -
> >> There is already standard facilities for stopping/starting daemons in
> >> LFS/BLFS via the sysV init mechanism.
> > Daemontools include a fabulous logging mechanism as well as other
> > *really* useful programs.
> >> By adding DJB's daemontools it adds complexity to the system because
> >> there are now more than one way that daemons are controlled. Some with
> >> SysV init and some with daemontools (and potentially some with xinetd -
> >> though I haven't found a need to install xinetd and would prefer not to
> >> for the same reason of simplicity).
> > So lets kick out sysvinit.
> Ouch, I vote against that. That's quite a digression from LFS, and now
> you're talking about making AnotherLFS instead of BeyondLFS. SysV is de
> facto how it has been done. I don't question whether DJB has produced
> quality software as far as MDA is concerned, but to change the fundamental
> organization of a system for just one daemon is just ridiculous. DJB
> should play nice and allow his software to be adaptable to whatever setup
> we run. Isn't what they teach in programming courses? Robustness and
Agreed. The system initialization and such are definitely in the domain
of LFS and not something BLFS should interfere with. However, I
personally do like a dependency-based init system, so interested parties
should probably reconvene this thread over on LFS Dev as a possible
future modification, or just write a really comprehensive hint. ;)
The email address above is just as phony as it looks, and for obvious reasons.
Instant messaging contact nfo: AIM: evilDagmar Jabber: evilDagmar at jabber.org
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-dev