On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:17 PM, Ross Burton wrote: > > On 7 Nov 2023, at 09:30, ANQUETIN Mathieu via lists.openembedded.org > <[email protected]> wrote: > > This forces layers, like meta-openrc for example, to remove files generated > by other layers before providing their own. This increases the maintenance > burden for layer maintainers of these alternative init systems while making > them always feel like second-class citizens. > > No, it doesn’t. > > Remove sysvinit and systemd from DISTRO_FEATURES and the relevant classes will > delete the initscripts/systemd units from the packages. > > I wasn’t aware of meta-openrc, but it should just have an openrc init > feature and behave the same as the existing init classes. > Thanks for the clarification. In fact, it does behave the same as the existing init classes. But reading the corresponding classes, it felt convoluted to inhibit running 'update-rc.d.bbclass' in other classes and to delete files in each class. To me, it looked like some sort of coupling and I will find it easier if each class only handled its files regardless of the others. Also, recipes would no longer need to filter files in 'do_install' given the DISTRO_FEATURES value.
I came up with this proposition after reading some documentation about init systems and after seeing how Artix Linux handled the possibility of providing multiple init systems. Best regards, Mathieu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1840): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/1840 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/102439769/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
