Even I don't know if it's sarcastic or not: Laurent is the most accurate person I know when it comes to a personal thing like a one-man-software-project. Such a project FEELS personal, believe me.
He takes bugs and user needs serious and cares more or less immediatly about both without being paid. He acts like a paid programmer without being paid. So what I would wish from you is to be able to feel that you honor that free work. It IS work for you and all of us. It says a lot about Laurents personallity. And even IF Laurent would be sarcastic: it's the same personallity which gives you this beautiful software. Compare that to systemd bug tracker and come back, kneeling, head down and saying "sorry master" ;-) Best Regards Oli Am 7. Juni 2023 09:12:02 UTC schrieb es...@geanix.com: >"Laurent Bercot" <ska-skaw...@skarnet.org> writes: > >>>I think it would be fair to be able to configure s6-linux-init so that >>>it does not rely on specific details about what hardware is available. >> >> Then I have some good news for you: s6-linux-init already does not >> rely on specific details about what hardware is available. >> >> Because if it did, and assumed that you have a virtual console, and you >> didn't, then it would crash. And you would be a very sad panda. And >> so would I. >> >> But it doesn't. >> >> What you're seeing is known as a run-time test: the existence of a >> /dev/tty0 device is tested. And if such a device exists, then s6-l-i >> attempts to support kbrequest on it. See? conditional support. It's >> nice and sweet and simple and has fewer failure cases (because the >> more configuration switches you have, the more you risk human error.) > >No need to go sarcastic. Of-course I see that. > >But a run-time test does not need to spam the user-visible console with >rather noisy warnings about missing features that was (on that system) >never intended to be there. > >> When you don't have a virtual console, s6-l-i works perfectly fine. > >Yes, it works fine. But a warning is printed to console. And as it is so >early, it is not going to the (catchall) logger, but on the physical >console. > >> If there was no warning message, you would never have noticed the extra >> system call, and you wouldn't be here asking for offline configuration >> where online configuration works. But there is a warning message, and >> that's what you don't like. > >Exactly. > >> So yes, the problem you have *is* the warning message per se, not the >> fact that s6-l-i performs one completely undetectable superflous open() >> call in headless systems. > >I agree. > >> So let's talk about the message. >> I agree it's not particularly elegant to print a warning on every boot >> in a normal configuration. So it could be refined: if devtmpfs can be >> relied on to always provide /dev/tty0 when a console exists, then >> when there's no such device, instead of "warning: missing device", >> s6-l-i could print "info: headless system detected". >> >> I think that would be less scary than a "warning", and users of headless >> and headful (?) systems could keep living together in peace and harmony. >> >> What do you think? > >That would be better. And if we could have an option for setting the >verbosity level, so that info level messages could be avoided, I would >be really happy ;) > >/Esben -- Automatic Server AG Oliver Schad Geschäftsführer oliver.sc...@automatic-server.com