Hi,
Ismael Luceno:
> I'm not talking about persuading anyone to use another protocol, just
> to make dbus optional. Nothing really _needs_ to talk to init, its
> useful, but it should be optional, you can make a simple event-gateway
> between d-bus and the "init-bus".
>
The dbus protocol exists and works well, libdbus is rather small and
efficient as these things go, AND many programs that want to talk to
init also talk to the system dbus daemon and thus need libdbus anyway.
So there is no reason whatsoever why anybody would want to invent a
separate "init-bus" protocol.
You need to have *some* way of signalling init to do its work -- and
you'll have to admit that the old sysVinit way ("telinit" which opened a
one-way fifo to init) or the old old sysVinit way (writing a letter to
/etc/initrunlvl and SIGHUPping init) really sucked -- no way to read
state, get progress feedback, ...
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
- -
Stop searching forever. Happiness is just next to you.
--
upstart-devel mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/upstart-devel
