On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 07:05:19AM -0800, Dan Smith wrote: > DL> Would init or boot make sense in this case as well? I'm open to > DL> changing it as long as it makes sense to everyone. > > I think that "init" is a widely-recognized term for the master process > in a given process namespace. I would also think that, at least from > a libvirt perspective, most people would be interested in having an > init-like process structure within their containers. Thus, I would > vote for using <init> over <boot> or <application>. I agree - particularly as we already use <boot> elsewhere to refer to something else. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list