Using mk takes sense as long as init scripts are a dependency based system. Please go on. That looks fun
Looks like doing suckless software implies surviving to troll comments. Your software will be suckless when trolls stop throwing rocks at it. On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:02, Sam Watkins <s...@nipl.net> wrote: > There are dependency based init systems, should use mk for it. > > net: 1 > inetd: net > 2: getty inetd > > mk 2 # go to runlevel 2 > # inetd crashes > mk 2 # bring it back to life > > It would need some sort of procfs view with process names, where unlink > sends a term signal, and some extra features for mk, to remove > objects in various ways. That could be done in a separate program. > > mk -rm inetd # stop inetd (and anything that depends on it) > mk -rmdeps 1 # go back to just runlevel 1 > > Ok, now I should install some sanity into my brain. > > I wonder if people get kicked off the list for posting stuff like this? > > Sam >
