-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 18 November 2007, Ismael Luceno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that we're using shell scripts, is it worth implementing such
> formats?, isn't easier to put that on the hands of the shell?.
> [...]
> Please don't implement it, that's a lot more complicated, and doesn't
> solves any of our current nor future problems.
Well, I was just widly polluting the ML with ideas. :-)
> > > A better solution IMO, is to have a static script to config-file
> > > mapping [...]
> >
> > What do you mean by this? Sorry, I don't understand.
>
> Well, I mean that each script should have a configuration file, and
> only one, independently of the distribution.
Sounds good. Of course there's nothing wrong with sticking to the shell's
capabilities. I just imagine two problems: First, the shell's syntax
itself, which can be broken easily by people that are not into shell
scrpting (e.g. it is common that people tend to insert spaces around equal
signs); and I fear we'll somewhere begin to create meta-syntacteis within
variables to express more complex configurations, e.g. for nics.
> My idea is:
> Every configuration variable must be put in the environment. We could
> eventually develop a configuration plugin to manage everything in a
> dynamic way.
InitNG could by default look for a config file named equally to the script
it executes and export every variable it finds in there. Sounds good.
> I have a simple idea to remove the barriers we have at the early boot
> stages. We could require a /init/ directory, where we can mount a
> tmpfs, and use a lot of clever things to manage the boot process in an
> easier and clean way. That will enable to create boot logs directly,
> for example, but of course will make initng depend on tmpfs (or
> equivalents on other OS).
All linux 2.6 systems need tmpfs for udev; I do not think that this would
cause alot of problems.
> That way we could also export a lot of information about the system
> status, so we could check things directly, without need for ngc. In
> fact, i want to get rid of the current ngc completely, and replace it
> with a front-end to manage these things in a user friendly way.
Ok, this is just great. Shame on me that I suggested inelegant crap. ;-)
This is the way to go.
Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD4DBQFHQFg+fkUtd7QNU/sRAj20AJjUzizeAECGazOIsNen0s0OXD3gAJ0ahKO9
G8KJC4Uc4Mnz5tcuayQJ5A==
=hyIR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
_______________________________________________
Initng mailing list
[email protected]
http://jw.dyndns.org/mailman/listinfo/initng
