FYI
A possible search usefulness:
Or, other search methods to deduce the root filesystem for the
kernel's "root=" parameter, or where the kernel is.
* Suppose that the grub directory is a subdirectory of boot
* Suppose that the boot directory is a subdirectory of root /
* Suppose that the kernel
linux fan wrote:
> In long-param-notation that is:
> search --no-floppy --file=filename
>
> Thus it is technically incorrect to imply that "[ ... the search ...]
> command only sets an internal GRUB variable used to find the kernel
> image.
The text is correct for the search lines in the conte
I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
Sysvinit with Upstart ...
Here are some points for discussion:
1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did).
2. The LFS user will learn something about old techniques (runlevels) and
new techniques (event based boot
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 13:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>
> Here are some points for discussion:
>
> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did).
But that requires SysVinit tools.
> 2. T
What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
- syslog-ng is under active development
- sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
- we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>
> Here are some points for discussion:
>
> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did).
> 2. The LFS user will learn something
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Robert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 13:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
>> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>>
>> Here are some points for discussion:
>>
>> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (li
Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 14:09 -0400 schrieb Robert Xu:
> But that requires SysVinit tools.
Did you mean halt, init, runlevel, shutdown, telinit, ...? They are all
included in Upstart, too.
Upstart is compatible with Sysvinit.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: htt
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
>
> - syslog-ng is under active development
> - sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
> - we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
>
> --
> http://linuxfrom
On 7/6/2010 2:09 PM, Robert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 13:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
>> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>>
>> Here are some points for discussion:
>>
>> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu di
On 7/6/2010 2:09 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
>
> - syslog-ng is under active development
> - sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
> - we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
>
Or rsyslog:
http://www.rsyslog.co
Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>
> Here are some points for discussion:
>
> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did).
> 2. The LFS user will learn something about old techniques (runlevels)
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 14:49, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 14:09 -0400 schrieb Robert Xu:
>> But that requires SysVinit tools.
>
> Did you mean halt, init, runlevel, shutdown, telinit, ...? They are all
> included in Upstart, too.
>
> Upstart is compatible with Sysvinit.
On 6 July 2010 18:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>
> Here are some points for discussion:
>
> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did).
> 2. The LFS user will learn something about old t
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 15:10, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
>> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>>
>> Here are some points for discussion:
>>
>> 1. The bootscripts can still be used (like Ubuntu did).
>> 2. The LFS u
Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 13:38 -0500 schrieb Stuart Stegall:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Sebastian Plotz
> wrote:
> > I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> > Sysvinit with Upstart ...
> >
> > Here are some points for discussion:
> >
> > 1. The bootsc
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:39:51 +0100, Ken Moffat
wrote:
> I suggest that you identify *what*
> you think can be done better during the boot process, then go off and
> try different method(s) - if any of them provides a significant benefit,
> come back and explain why you think the change is worthwh
Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 20:39 +0100 schrieb Ken Moffat:
> On 6 July 2010 18:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> > I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> > Sysvinit with Upstart ...
> >
> > Here are some points for discussion:
> >
> > 1. The bootscripts can still be
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 13:38 -0500 schrieb Stuart Stegall:
[SNIP]
>> Fedora is dropping upstart for systemd. openSUSE is waiting on FC14
>> and how well systemd works before proceeding with upstart/systemd.
>> There's also a ITP for s
On 06/07/10 18:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
> Sysvinit with Upstart ...
Reading through the README in the upstart source, it depends on libnih,
nih-dbus-tool and D-BUS so it would mean adding 3 extra packages into LFS.
Andy
On 06/07/10 21:25, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> My idea was, that we're using the scripts for an unspecified time. After
> that, they may be replaced with event based jobs.
>
> Another point is, that the event based jobs are shorter than the
> scripts. So I think that they are easier to maintain. -->
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
> On 06/07/10 21:25, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>> My idea was, that we're using the scripts for an unspecified time. After
>> that, they may be replaced with event based jobs.
>>
>> Another point is, that the event based jobs are shorter than the
>
On 6 July 2010 21:25, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 06.07.2010, 20:39 +0100 schrieb Ken Moffat:
>> On 6 July 2010 18:50, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>> > I just want to start a discussion, if it would be meaningful to replace
>> > Sysvinit with Upstart ...
>> >
>> > Here are some points fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/2010 03:46 PM, Stuart Stegall wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> I think it would be a wise plan. Someone can of course try converting
> all the base startup jobs over to systemd. It might be wise to
> mention upstart/systemd now that it looks as though m
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 19:18, DJ Lucas wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/06/2010 03:46 PM, Stuart Stegall wrote:
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> I think it would be a wise plan. Someone can of course try converting
>> all the base startup jobs over to systemd. It might be wise t
25 matches
Mail list logo
