On 7 Jan 2011, at 14:46, Dave Neary wrote: >> This raises then the obvious question of Why ? >> What tangible benefits does moving to Upstart offer. > > I can answer this... > > Upstart supports old init style scripts, but that's not all it supports. > You can do things like have inter-service dependencies, so that if > service A needs service B to be available first, they you can tell it to > wait for service B in its upstart config file. > > Upstart can watch config files and reload them, if it's told to, without > you having to do so explicitly (which is pretty cool). > > Upstart supports on-demand starting of services (in a DBus like way). > > systemd offers essentially the same benefits.
I understand the general benefits of Upstart. What I mean is what does it offer MeeGo over SysVinit for the upcoming 1.2 release. Especially if the plan is still to move to systemd for 1.3 (see Carsten's link to the Arch meeting). The MeeGo init script stack (at least for x86) is based on the MoblinV2 stack. And the MoblinV2 stack was tailored to be fast and use SysVInit. The premise for not using Upstart then was along the lines of "Starting lots of bloated blocking code in parallel isn't as good as finding out why things are slow and fixing them). It seems like a futile effort to port to upstart for 1 release, ditch it and move to systemd. The only potential benefit would be that the boot process would be structured to depend on some of the parallelisms but that seems like little incentive. -- Glen Gray <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
