On Mon, 6 Jun 2016 00:06:11 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 07:01:39PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > Ahh, but you're forgetting that sysvinit thang I wish never
> > happened: runlevels. And of course that 5 function thing with
> > start, stop, restart, and the other two, whatever th
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 07:01:39PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> Ahh, but you're forgetting that sysvinit thang I wish never happened:
> runlevels. And of course that 5 function thing with start, stop,
> restart, and the other two, whatever they are.
>
> But yeah, Edward, your requires, requires_runn
Ahh, but you're forgetting that sysvinit thang I wish never happened:
runlevels. And of course that 5 function thing with start, stop,
restart, and the other two, whatever they are.
But yeah, Edward, your requires, requires_running, start_parameters and
stop_parameters are a good start. And you al
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 21:22:04 +0200
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 18:54:12 +0100
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
> > What's "a daemon"?
> >
> > (...)
> >
> > And no 'package' not specifically created for this use case could
> > provide the meta-information needed here.
>
>
> Hallo
Hi,
I would like to suggest as a text template format for the automatic
generation of init scripts to use a format similar to the one used in
package control files. This uses sections that can easily be parsed
without using complex parsers.
I would go like this:
Requires:
Requires_Running:
Start
On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 18:54:12 +0100
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> What's "a daemon"?
>
> (...)
>
> And no 'package' not specifically created for this use case could
> provide the meta-information needed here.
Hallo Rainer,
this sounds much like a rhetoric question. I think for any attempt to
unify
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> i was not talking about replacing sysvinit's shellscripts, but suggest
> to implement a routine that creates them "on the fly" on installation
> of a new daemon, from /one/ init-independent "meta" configuration file,
> packaged with the daemon.
OK, my experience in this
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 16:41:22 +0200
Jaromil wrote:
> OK but can we avoid polarization and use "markup (language
> definition)" instead of XML here? I share and understand well
> everyone's concerns about XML here and think it won't help mutual
> understanding of what you point out if we keep the u
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 03:58:45PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:38:33AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:58:37 +
> > hellekin wrote:
> >
> > > On 06/03/2016 10:42 PM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That said, I wonder, what information any
> >
Florian Zieboll writes:
> Simon Hobson wrote:
>> Florian Zieboll wrote:
>>
>> > Seriously, what else besides dependencies on other daemons that
>> > have to be running and some testing for the existence of certain
>> > (everything is) files would be necessary to pass to a parser
>> > script, wh
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:38:33AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:58:37 +
> hellekin wrote:
>
> > On 06/03/2016 10:42 PM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> > >
> > > That said, I wonder, what information any
> > > arbitrary init system would need, that can not be delivered e.g. in
>
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 10:58:37AM +, hellekin wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 10:42 PM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> >
> > That said, I wonder, what information any
> > arbitrary init system would need, that can not be delivered e.g. in a
> > simple XML file, packaged with the daemon.
> >
>
> An XML fil
On Sun, 05 Jun 2016, Steve Litt wrote:
> Which is pretty much what Florian was suggesting: Change and convert
> the XML only when something about the boot changes, and put the output
> file into an rc file or something like that.
OK but can we avoid polarization and use "markup (language
definiti
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:58:37 +
hellekin wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 10:42 PM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> >
> > That said, I wonder, what information any
> > arbitrary init system would need, that can not be delivered e.g. in
> > a simple XML file, packaged with the daemon.
> >
>
> An XML file, h
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 02:08:02PM +0200, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:58:37 +
> hellekin wrote:
> > On 06/03/2016 10:42 PM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> > > That said, I wonder, what information any
> > > arbitrary init system would need, that can not be delivered e.g. in
> > >
On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:58:37 +
hellekin wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 10:42 PM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
> >
> > That said, I wonder, what information any
> > arbitrary init system would need, that can not be delivered e.g. in
> > a simple XML file, packaged with the daemon.
> >
>
> An XML file, how
On 06/03/2016 10:42 PM, Florian Zieboll wrote:
>
> That said, I wonder, what information any
> arbitrary init system would need, that can not be delivered e.g. in a
> simple XML file, packaged with the daemon.
>
An XML file, however simple it may be, is probably the last thing you
want to add to
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 22:06:47 +0100
Simon Hobson wrote:
> Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > In all daemontools-inspired process supervisors, dependency
> > handling, if you indeed need it, is just this easy:
> >
> > ==
> > #!/bin/sh
> > if ping ; then
> > exec
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 19:41:02 +0100
Simon Hobson wrote:
> Florian Zieboll wrote:
>
> > Seriously, what else besides dependencies on other daemons that
> > have to be running and some testing for the existence of certain
> > (everything is) files would be necessary to pass to a parser
> > script,
Steve Litt wrote:
> In all daemontools-inspired process supervisors, dependency handling,
> if you indeed need it, is just this easy:
>
> ==
> #!/bin/sh
> if ping ; then
> exec /path/to/app_depending_on_network
> fi
> sleep 1
> ===
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 11:49:25 +0200
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 03:27:16 -0400
> Steve Litt wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 00:42:46 +0200
> > Florian Zieboll wrote:
> >
> > > My experience with init systems is mostly limited sysV init (well,
> > > also busybox and system d).
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> Seriously, what else besides dependencies on other daemons that have to
> be running and some testing for the existence of certain (everything is)
> files would be necessary to pass to a parser script, which could be
> packaged with the respective init system?
Are we in
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 03:27:16 -0400
Steve Litt wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 00:42:46 +0200
> Florian Zieboll wrote:
>
> > My experience with init systems is mostly limited sysV init (well,
> > also busybox and system d). That said, I wonder, what information
> > any arbitrary init system would nee
Le 04/06/2016 09:34, Simon Walter a écrit :
On 06/04/2016 04:27 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
I always feel a lot better when I can singlehandedly fix what goes
wrong with my possessions.
Here here! Give this man a beer! I usually use both hands, but I do
know what you mean.
On 06/04/2016 04:27 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
I always feel a lot better when I can singlehandedly fix what goes
wrong with my possessions.
Here here! Give this man a beer! I usually use both hands, but I do know
what you mean.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 03:27:16 -0400
Steve Litt wrote:
> Now I'm going to wander into the realm of pure opinion, and please
> understand, I am not, not, NOT suggesting Devuan ever officially
> incorporate this...
Whoops, I forgot the URL: http://ewontfix.com/14/
The author is Rich Felker, and thi
On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 00:42:46 +0200
Florian Zieboll wrote:
> My experience with init systems is mostly limited sysV init (well,
> also busybox and system d). That said, I wonder, what information any
> arbitrary init system would need, that can not be delivered e.g. in a
> simple XML file, package
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 22:53:58 +0100
KatolaZ wrote:
> You see, in less then 10 emails there are 10 different opinions about
> which TheBest init system to adopt in a future Devuan :)
>
> The only way to avoid useless flames on the topic, which will surely
> cause friction, and discomfort, and pain,
28 matches
Mail list logo