Sergey Bugaev, le mar. 02 mai 2023 21:46:14 +0300, a ecrit: > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 7:48 PM Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> > wrote: > > This will be just the fourth time that this part of the Hurd gets > > reimplemented? > > > > I mean, I agree that some pieces can be added to the picture and things > > be improved, but I see that part getting reimplemented by people having > > great ambitions for it, and then it gets reimplemented again and again. > > Then perhaps you could tell me more about the history, so we can avoid > repeating the mistakes of the past :)
Basically, overengineering = never really finished and integrated. > I'm vaguely aware that /hurd/startup was a full-blown init system some > time ago ? No, before it got renamed to startup, it was indeed called init, but wasn't doing much more than what startup does: basically start the bootstrap processes and watch them a bit, and give hand to the runsystem shell script which would just run the init rc scripts. > and then it was made to only do what is required to bring up enough of > a Unix environment to then run a third-part init system. I believe it's better to separate the hurdish pieces from the unixish pieces, yes, so distributions can change the unixish part as desired. > I'm aware of the bootshell proposal, but it seems to have never made > it into the mainline Hurd. That letter also mentions that there was > once a 'serverboot' which apparently did all the bootscript things > that gnumach and boot(1) do now? I don't remember. Samuel
