Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > "Joel Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is there some reason that we can't, at least for the moment, just hack > > around init such that the scripts it *calls* call into /etc/rc<x>.d (and > > thus, to /etc/init.d)? Simulating SysV init scripts shouldn't be that > > difficult; while I have been told that some inits (notably FreeBSD's) don't > > support all of the runlevels, this could be fixed much more easily, either > > upstream or locally, than trying to port over glibc... > > NetBSD has an rc system that was designed by Luke Mewburn based on > some ideas of mine (and a program I wrote called rcorder). Rather than > having the files in the rc?.d directories run in a lexically defined > order, they run in a dynamically computed order based on > dependencies. This works a lot more nicely and is pretty logical. We > switched to the system a while ago. > > FreeBSD is now (I understand) adopting our system. > > I strongly suggest studying it before throwing it out. Simulating SysV > init script behavior is pretty trivial in our system, except for the > fact that we don't have run levels. We decided that in practice people > don't actually need or use run levels although they very often claim > to want them. > > Perry
This brings us back to Debian-Policy, which is quite explicit about what must be done by init (though, thankfully, it doesn't declare *how* it must be done). Please see the Policy Manual, section 10. Unless we intend to move all of Debian to this init (hey, if you think it's that much better, convince them), runlevels it is. At least if this is going to be called Debian. Me, I happen to like SysV init, but I agree, simulating it should not be terribly difficult, and should suffice to meet the requirements of the Debian Policy. I do think it's important, at this stage, simply for the fact that working around it for the time being would allow us to avoid the problem of glibc for a while longer (and, honestly, I'd rather use the native libc anyway, if we can manage it). Looking at what it will take to meet Policy is, in my opinion, *not* something we should be putting off, when it raises a relevant question, unless we want to have to go back and rework half of the core system. But hey... just my suggestion for the "KISS" solution. -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lightbearer.com/~lucifer
