> On Jan 6, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 01:43:28AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/defaultenv/defaultenv-2-splash/init/splash b/defaultenv/defaultenv-2-splash/init/splash
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..04fdc8e
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/defaultenv/defaultenv-2-splash/init/splash
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
>>>> +#!/bin/sh
>>>> +
>>>> +/env/bin/splash
>>>
>>> Why do you need a separate /env/bin/splash here? Can't you add its
>>> content here directly?
>>> If we keep it, it should have the same name as the 'splash' command.
>>
>> The problem today is that the generic init is not ordered (such as rc.{0-9})
>> on linux so if we need specific init before the splash we can not ensure it
>> buy adding an init file that will be added to be run before
>>
>> The only way is to overwrite the init
>>
>> or we do introduct a rc.d style buy starting the init with 000-xxx style file
>> name or link
>
> Then I'm much more in favor for using 000-xxx style. This makes the
> intention clear how things should be ordered.
>
> Besides, if you need board specific init you can still overwrite
> /env/init/splash instead of /env/bin/splash.
If we do this I propose to move all the default init script in /env/bin or what ever
and use symlink
in /env/init/
what do you think?
Best Regards,
J.
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
