Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Les Mikesell wrote:
People running fedora will expect to use sysV style init
configuration to control it.
Now, I think Lennart is right in pushing the concept behind Upstart
and the new InitKit, both of which break the init config paradigm and
its runlevels.
The reason was actually outlined in Miguel de Icaza's "Let's Make Unix
Not Suck" a few years back. It outlined some weaknesses of the Unix
pipe and filter and signalling system: pipes are unidirectional, data
is not typed, signals are crude in essence. Component-based thinking
through CORBA led to the invention of Bonobo, then the condensed DCOP
and eventually D-Bus which actually does the tricks most sought after:
bidirectional messages between processes, typed messages, a strict
namespace, broadcast messages.
The SysVInit system currently suffers from not being able to use such
a mechanism.
Upstart solved it, basically, but has some design flaws and is used in
init-compatibility mode in Ubuntu. So now InitKit is coming along.
It's worth sacrificing runlevels to reach the next step of unsucky Unix.
POSIX does not mandate init and its runlevels, nor does the Single
Unix spec. I think there is a good reason for: it was awkward, so it
wasn't standardized. If everyone though it was a good idea they would
have standardized it back when POSIX was written. (I wasn't a member
of the committes tho, so who knows.)
Linus
I agree. Also, I don't necessarily think we should wait for InitKit.
InitKit is more of a fork-and-abandon of upstart (though major changes
are in order) and I don't thing Upstart would be a bad stepping stone in
the meantime. I will talk to the developer about this. Getting features
to users sooner is a good thing :)
--CJD
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
