On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 04:05:29 -0700 James Powell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree Laurent. Though, even though complete init+supervision > systems like Runit exist, it's been nearly impossible to get a > foothold with any alternatives to sysvinit and systemd effectively. I > think one of the major setbacks has been the lack of ready-to-use > script sets, like those included with OpenRC, various rehashes of > sysvinit and bsdinit scripts, and systemd units just aren't there > ready to go. > > Testing and trying to debug in house scripts is a pain and to be > honest stalled our work with LFS a while back. > > Runit is one of the most complete alternatives out there, but if > scripts are what is holding things back, why has this never been > accurately addressed? > > -Jim I think part of the difficulty of writing run scripts is there are two different kinds of runscripts: 1) Simple system specific custom made run script. 2) Works everywhere, regardless of software constellation, one size fits all run script. Distros and packages and "upstreams" make #2, which are very, very, very difficult. In my Suckless Init plus daemontools-encore adventure, I had a 200+ line "one size fits all" sysvinit init script degenerate into a less than 20 line system specific daemontools-encore run script. Personally, if I were a Linux distribution script maker, at the very least I would assume I'm working with the Linux kernel and the "stuff" provided by the distro release for which the script was made. That would cut down on a lot of the tl;dr cotton candy. SteveT Steve Litt June 2015 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence http://www.troubleshooters.com/key
