On 26. mai 2010 14:16, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:42:13 +0200
drago01<drago01(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin<cdahlin(a)redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdahlin(a)redhat.com) wrote:
>> [...]
>> 3) Cutting down on the forking by replacing some of the shell
>> scripts... cool 3a) With C code... really?
>
> This does make a lot of sense to me, initscripts being scripts is a
> major slowdown factor
> by itself.
>
> It is not like you want to edit the scripts all the time, so there is
> no reason for them being scripts.
While you don't edit them *all* the time, it is something that is done
regularly, and it is something most admins can do with ease.
Turn them in a C program and you left admins out in the cold, most of
them.
Would it not be more fruitful to discuss _why_ you (we?) need to edit
the initscripts? Describe what functionality is missing or wrong in the
default ones?
And then see if the same problems exists with a new solution (be it
systemd or upstart or something else) and how they can be fixed within
_that_ init-context?
I guess most of us don't edit initscripts for the sake of editing
initscripts, but to achieve something that is not possible (or at least
far more difficult to do) with the scripts provided by the distro.
If these things simply work out of the box with the new world (like
reordering startup of daemons to make sure network is up because you
need LDAP to authenticate the startup of some other daemon), or they are
moot (making sure something is mounted to access some tools that is
needed by the script) then there is no need to edit any scripts, ant
this whole debate is quite meaningless...
--
_,--', _._.--._____
.--.--';_'-.', ";_ _.,-' Ola Thoresen
.'--'. _.' {`'-;_ .-.>.'
'-:_ ) / `' '=. It is easier to fix Unix
) > {_/, /~) than to live with Windows
|/ `^ .'