On Wed, 26.05.10 09:53, Andrew Parker (andrewparker(a)bigfoot.com) wrote:
>> I couldn't agree more. They need to be scripts,
considering how seldom
>> they actually run it makes even less sense to chase down optimization in
>> them by making them compiled.
>
> -21 million.
>
> Scripts are a crutch to avoid properly designed daemons and
> configuration systems. I never edit initscripts to "configure"
> daemons, because they would just be overwritten at the next package
> upgrade. Configuration should be separate from code.
I don't edit them, but I do frequently look at them to see what
they're doing/why they aren't doing something/what config files i can
add/edit to change behaviour etc.
actually, i do edit them sometimes to add a temporary "-x" to them.
sure as heck beats gdb.
But the question is whether it beats systemd's kernel opts such as
"systemd.confirm_spawn=" or "systemd.log_level=", which are much more
useful to debug or trace the start-up of services.
And again, nobody said anything of replacing the current shell scripts
with identical equivalents written in C. There will be no shell-to-C
compiler or any such madness.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4