On Wed, 26.05.10 09:53, Andrew Parker (andrewparker@xxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> I couldn't agree more. They need to be scripts, considering how seldom > >> they actually run it makes even less sense to chase down optimization in > >> them by making them compiled. > > > > -21 million. > > > > Scripts are a crutch to avoid properly designed daemons and > > configuration systems. I never edit initscripts to "configure" > > daemons, because they would just be overwritten at the next package > > upgrade. Configuration should be separate from code. > > I don't edit them, but I do frequently look at them to see what > they're doing/why they aren't doing something/what config files i can > add/edit to change behaviour etc. > > actually, i do edit them sometimes to add a temporary "-x" to them. > sure as heck beats gdb. But the question is whether it beats systemd's kernel opts such as "systemd.confirm_spawn=" or "systemd.log_level=", which are much more useful to debug or trace the start-up of services. And again, nobody said anything of replacing the current shell scripts with identical equivalents written in C. There will be no shell-to-C compiler or any such madness. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
