On Saturday 25 July 2009 11:07, Alexander Shishkin wrote: > 2009/7/25 Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]>: > > On Tuesday 21 July 2009 23:31, Alexander Shishkin wrote: > >> In case our init is not a busybox applet, but an external program > >> like SysV init or upstart, we'd want to be able to call telinit > >> (or somesuch) to switch to an appropriate runlevel instead of > >> simply rebooting (or otherwise shutting down). > > > > I am torn on this. > > > > Can't it be achieved much simpler, e.g. > > > > /bin/reboot: > > > > #!/bin/sh > > test x"$1" = x"-f" && /bin/busybox reboot "$@" > > exec telinit 6 > > > > ? > > Of course it could, but let's see: we compile busybox with halt > applets,
... because we want to be able to do "reboot -f". For example, for me it's the only "standard" way to hard reboot the machine from my shutdown script which I use instead of "reboot without -f"... reboot -f is the only action of reboot which can't be implemented via shell. > then we manually replace reboot/poweroff symlinks with crude > shell hacks "crude" and "hacks" is an emotional attiture, its not technical. "We replace reboot/poweroff symlinks with shell scripts", yes. Let's see whether this is good or bad... > for the sheer joy of not applying a trivial patch that > fits in perfectly? If you want to find people who find joy in rejecting patches, may I suggest you to submit a patch to NTP or glibc? I do not reject patches because I want people to suffer. I try to incorporate patches even if I do not 100% agree with them. But if I am seriously unsure, then I discuss them, expaining why they do not look ok to me. > Come to think of it, 9/10 of busybox functionality could be > implemented in shell, And some of it definitely should have been. ifup is a candidate #1. reboot also can be. An applet which does nothing else than starts or signals other processes and neither runs for a long time (server) nor contains complex logic, isn't really something which is best written in C. I do not plan to remove such applets, but will need a very good rationale why it's good to add _more_ things like these. > however, it's not and having a trivial patch in > is actually loads simpler than having to maintain half arsed scripts > that try to deal with command line options for applets. > Which reminds me, btw, why is this not done the same _simpler_ way you > suggest for the -i option of reboot? You need to bring technical arguments, not emotional ones. I think this is not an unreasonable request from my side. Technically speaking, the situation is like this: bbox reboot currently is meant to work with busybox init. You propose to make it possible to use it with SysV init (and any other kinds which have telinit), right? Since you are using SysV init, doesn't it make more sense to use _corresponding_ reboot from the same package? I think SysV init provides those. Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you think it's beneficial for bbox to be able to mimic SysVinit's reboot and it outweighs the additional of a CONFIG_xxx and increased chances of users being confused? -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
