On Mon, 07.01.08 12:35, Casey Dahlin (cjdahlin@xxxxxxxx) wrote: >> Everytime I hear someone mentioning initng I get a headache. >> >> They got almost everything wrong you can get wrong in an init >> system. The kept the worst things from SysV (such as numerical >> "runlevels"), and added the worst things they could find in other >> people's software. Like the braindeadness to make everything a shared >> object, including stuff like executing chdir(). Can you believe that? >> They have a "plugin" to change a directory which consists of 100 lines >> or code or so. Unbelievable... >> >> Lennart >> >> > This is all very useful. > > I am proposing a session at FUDcon to explore the options, and to > definitively pick a solution. Hopefully the following day's hackfest will > see direct effort toward implementing a solution. "Definitively" picking a solution? Unfortunately I don't see that any of the currently available init implementations get things right in a way that we could "definitively" pick it. The only one of the new systems that has good code is Upstart. However, in my understanding it got everything hooked up the wrong way round. I.e. instead of having other daemons contact Upstart to start and stop services it itself hooks into all kind of "events". A couple of RH and Novell people discussed that with Scott at this years GUADEC conference a while back. I think we managed to convince him that this should be changed. The result is his new Initkit project. However, that's still in its infancy and will take some time to be useful. This however means that now adopting Upstart would be investing in a project that's going to be replaced soonishly anyway. Also, Ubuntu uses Upstart mostly in SysV compatibility mode right now. So, in short: initng is a joke, initkit not ready yet, upstart a bit of a moving target that's going to be replaced soon anyway. The other systems seem to be too simple (minit, runit) or totally un-Linuxish (SMF, launchd). I think our safest bet for now is to stay with SysV but spice it up a little bit with LSB headers to allow parallel startup, like Debian is doing it now. And then, let's wait what Scott comes up with in InitKit. Given that he's a Canonical guy, and both RH and Novell engineers discussed Upstart in lengths with him I hope that this is also the best bet to get something done that is adopted by all "big three" distributions, working a bit against the balkanization of Linux userspace. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553 http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
