On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 01:07:28PM +0200, Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 03:00:15PM +0200, Michal Soltys wrote:
Ok, as promised, this is fresh approach to initscripts. Perhaps a few rough edges here and there, but is thoroughly tested (modulo just-a-moment ago minor changes I did)
thanks a lot, that was a expensive work ;)
Indeed, impressive stuff!
At a first, coarse sight I like it, but it's rather complicated compared to our current solution. A quick wc shows that we have about quad the lines, not sure whether this might be too complicated for CRUX or not. I'd really like to hear the opinions of the other core/opt maintainers here.
I have to say, i started by looking at rc.conf and i was taken back a bit. Granted, most is comments - but it still spanned my entire terminal screen. The beauty with our current rc is that it takes about 5 seconds to figure out exactly how everything works, and i dont want to loose that. I have to confess I've not yet taken time to look in more detail. Hopefully I'll have more time and energy to do that this weekend.
One thing I do not understand is why you move the code to mount the fusectl filesystem to the init system. IMO this should be done at the time the kernel module is loaded. Have you seen the rule I've added in udev 174? Adding the rule to the port opt/fuse might be another option as well.
Btw, shouldn't we try to add application specific stuff like the one for lvm and mdadm via the corresponding port, a kind of run-control directory with short scripts added by the packages comes to my mind?
+1
best regards Juergen
P.S. unfortunately my time is still very limited at the moment, but I will try to do a first test of rc-ng next week.
_______________________________________________ crux-devel mailing list crux-devel@lists.crux.nu http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux-devel
-- Fredrik Rinnestam