On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 12:20:52 +0200 aitor_czr <aitor_...@gnuinos.org> wrote:
> So, i'll give here > my opinion: any risky decision (as well as a replacement to sysvinit) > should be > taken in a devuan derivative and not in the devuan operanting system > per se,which is a base to build upon. Sounds good to me. As per sysvinit replacement, as the resident sysvinit detractor and resident runit/s6 fan, I see no reason to hurry the replacement of sysvinit, at least as an init system. To my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with the "stage 1" part of sysvinit: The part that brings up the OS to the point where daemons can be run. Nor do I have a problem with the PID1 part of sysvinit. My beef with sysvinit is only the part that handles daemons. That part of sysvinit can be replaced by runit or s6, *by the computer's user*. All we need is to make sure that the Devuan packages for runit *process supervision* and s6 *process supervision* work correctly when installed. Then the user can install runit or s6 and slowly transfer daemons from sysvinit to runit or s6, at his or her leisure. I haven't fulfilled my promise to 1) make an s6 supervision package and 2) Hand over a collection of curated run files for each of s6 and runit. I'm sorry about that --- I've had a lot of time management problems the past two years. I'll try to do at least a partial collection of #2 in the next half-year. If anybody who is faster or has more time than I does some of this stuff before me, especially #1, I won't be insulted: I'll be relieved. In summary, there's absolutely no reason to be in any rush to replace sysvinit: For the foreseeable future, the (incomplete) process supervision of sysvinit can be informally replaced by runit or s6, very easily, by a motivated user. I can help such a user. SteveT _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
