Hi Darren, On 14/06/12 01:33, Darren Hart wrote: > o Do not include the standard Busybox init ... > o Do not provide inittab functionality
I am not entirely clear what you are hoping to gain by creating a home grown init solution? A system that runs nothing but a shell is really not useful for anything all, everyone using it will be adding some sort of services, so the question of how the extending works (or does not work), needs to be in the forefront of the design. My main reservation is that you are suggesting to break one of the basic premisses behind the whole ecosystem, namely that if I add a package that provides a service to an image, I get that service running; 'fix by documentation' is never a fix. So back to my original question, what are the expected benefits to the Poky users of not using initd in such minimal systems, and do you have any numbers to show it is worth it? Maybe the numbers are compelling, but considering that currently Poky does not even support systemd, adding yet another, home grown, init system seems like a step in the wrong direction (perhaps sorting out the systemd mess is an opportunity to deal with the init sequence in a more generic way). (I hear what you are saying about a system that only includes packages you want and nothing else, but this is orthogonal to the system size; I for one want to be able to create a midsized system that includes only packages that I want and nothing else. :) ) Tomas _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list [email protected] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
