What about using "slew.rc" and changing the installation path from
`/etc/s6' to `/etc/slew'?
That's all fine with me, but it may have connotations in English
that you don't want to associate with a project aimed at stability
and friendliness :)
To be honest, I find the idea not very
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 12:00:22PM +0800, Casper Ti. Vector wrote:
> What about using "slew.rc" and changing the installation path from
> `/etc/s6' to `/etc/slew'? The change is not exactly trivial but already
> much smaller than the `/etc/s6-init' / `/etc/s6-rc' merge I did before
> releasing
>
> I see that s6.rc comes with a lot of pre-written scripts, from acpid
> to wpa_supplicant. Like Avery's supervision-scripts package, this is
> something that I think goes above and beyond simple "policy": this is
> seriously the beginning of a distribution initiative. I have no wish
> at all
Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 10:51:57AM +, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> Bear in mind that - this is a simplified, but descriptive enough view
> of the political landscape of the current Linux ecosystem - distribution
> maintainers are *lazy*. They already know systemd, or openrc, or
> sysvinit; they
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 03:05:53PM +0200, Alex Suykov wrote:
> The reaction to the slew manual I'm afraid will likely be along the
> lines of "that's all cool and stuff but how do I actually run this?".
I again confess that I am not good at writing tutorials; the current
manual is really more
In their defence, I don't think any mainstream distribution makes this
kind of modifications easy. IMO it's safe to assume a new init system
means a new distribution (possibly derived from something larger).
And that is why I intend to start with smaller, more flexible,
less inertia-driven
