On 06/22/2013 12:07 PM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > After talking with WilliamH yesterday, I have this opinion: > - Playing with /sbin/init (instead of /sbin/einit) has two interesting > advantages: > 1. For example, I now have init=/sbin/e4rat-preload in my grub.conf, if > I do a typo, it would fallback to /sbin/init. If /sbin/init is provided > by sysvinit, people running other init providers could have problems. > This wouldn't occur if /sbin/init has been changed to use desired init > system. > 2. Tools like e4rat or bootchart launch /sbin/init, if I switch to > systemd, I would need to edit separate configuration files for each tool > to point to new init. This wouldn't occur if we "play" with /sbin/init > => we would only change init in one place > > - I have two doubts: > 1. Why do we need a wrapper instead of changing symlinks?
So once I'm not busy playing with pixels and hw accels I would implement addons support in the wrapper (so bootchart and e4rat would just ran by the init wrapper) > 2. Why Fabio chose to move sysvinit to subdirectories... wouldn't be > much simpler to simply rename /sbin/init to /sbin/sysvinit? I prefer /bin/init but any place would fit (and should be configurable anyway) lu
