Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] MSB: simpleinit-msb will be discontinued

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Arwed von Merkatz <v.merkatz AT gmx.net>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] MSB: simpleinit-msb will be discontinued
  • Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 18:17:35 +0100

On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:16:09AM -0800, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Quoting Seth Alan Woolley <seth AT positivism.org>:
> <snip>
> > He didn't write 95% of telinit... rycee wrote the first draft of its
> > internal functions (actually found in /etc/init.d/smgl_telinit, then I
> > added some more crap to it (i.e. the parts you like ;) )
> >
> > simpleinit-msb is not even most of the code anymore in our init system.
> >
> > To answer your question:
> >
> > He didn't write simpleinit; Richard Gooch did, and Gooch abandoned it.
> > MSB took it up and forked it. Now MSB wants a clean project in the same
> > philosophy but coded to his own style.
> >
> > simpleinit-msb right now is pretty stable at this point, and even though
> > it could have a design revision to increase its orthogonality in some
> > areas, it's working well for what we use it, and the scripts that
> > surround it, for. Personally, I could see some more ability to mangle
> > with the internal linked list being useful for handling starting and
> > stopping things in lower runlevels than the current runlevel without
> > messing up shutdown order.
>
> Whoa Nelly!
>
> Let's think this through carefully before we decide to switch. :) I'm all
> for a
> better init system, but simpleinit-msb has been doing just fine for a while
> now. With 1.0 a close 4 months away, I'm not sure we have time to do an
> entire
> init conversion along with testing. I propose that we wait until lfsinit
> releases a "stable" version before even looking at it, then after that we
> can
> see if lfsinit has any benefits over simpleinit-msb that we want/need and
> how
> much work (if any) is needed to convert our scripts to the new init. After
> that
> we can decide if we want to switch or not.
>
> If we feel that we can get our init switched over to lfsinit with lfsinit
> being
> stable /and/ still finish our other targets for 1.0 on time, then let's
> discuss
> this, but if not, we should probably focus on the other items we said we
> wanted
> for our 1.0. :)

I agree. And if any real bug shows up in simpleinit-msb we can fix it
ourselves, it's really not that big or hard to understand.

--
Arwed v. Merkatz Source Mage GNU/Linux developer
http://www.sourcemage.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page