On Monday 15 November 2004 13:32, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Using minit as a replacement for init saves zero time (and adds > additional complexity due to its (IMO, broken) dependency model.) > > It's fixing the underlying actions under init that is the big win. I agree. Though, it's nice to look at it to see what it can bring to the table, because Minit you can get a call tree of: Minit -> service (single exec called from C) In most cases. Whereas with the current init process you get a calltree similar to this: Init -> Shell (rc) -> Exec'd Shells (rc?.d/S*) -> Config Files -> service Several levels of indirection brings flexibility in what you can do and how you can configure it (Just look at the difference between SuSE and Redhat; yeah, LSB, whatever). But, this comes at a cost. So, playing with Minit does not necessarily mean an immediate call for a replacement of init. Playing with minit highlights the changes needed in the system configuration. Though, trying to keep compliant with LSB and maintaining use of /bin/sh is going to be a tough job with the current init. With minit, the tough job would be integration with current infra. Course, this is tougher than the former, but nonetheless, as I stated earlier, a good exercise. Maybe in the end, a C version of rc, a config compiler, and a parallelization technique with deps will get the job done using the current init. take care, -- -jeff
