torsdagen den 16 augusti 2012 06.59.45 skrev pancake: > 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
There is a mk-based init system that was initially presented here: http://9fans.net/archive/2009/10/375 perhaps a start?
