On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 7:37 AM, Jonatan Liljedahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Carlo Calica wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Jonatan Liljedahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> One thing I noticed about gobo Tasks is that some takes start/stop > >> arguments and some does not. Doing StopTask Network brings down the > >> interfaces, while StopTask HAL would try to start another copy of hald! > >> > > > > Yes, our Tasks are a mess. I have a simple #! wrapper that handles > > the arg processing and calls start()/stop() hooks as required. There > > are restart() and reload() hooks as well but if they don't exist the > > wrapper just calls the stop() and start() hooks in order. I haven't > > had time to benchmark a boot using the wrapper to see if there's a > > slowdown. > > > > The goal is to make Tasks similar to recipes. Metadata could be added > > as vars and more hooks defined as needed. Some form a dependency > > handling is worthwhile. See [1] for a "need" based approach. > > Hopefully, the wrapper could abstract away the differences between > > basic init, advanced features of Upstart, InitNG. > > > > That leaves HOW tasks are selected for boot. I think this should > > outside the Task files themselves. With dependency handling, this > > could be an array in BootOptions, but I don't really like that either. > > I'd like a /S/S/BootTasks file with one task per line, with # comments.. > I kind of like the idea with that file too. I will certainly look into the init projects (upstart, initNG, eInit). Lets see if I can provide a patch, or new way of doing stuff, which you all like ;) > > -- > /Jonatan [ http://kymatica.com ] > _______________________________________________ > gobolinux-devel mailing list > gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org > http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel >
_______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
