Le 18/02/2016 17:15, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> I suspect that many people who are
> (unspecifically) 'offended' by that suffer from a bad case of "But
> that's not how I would have done it!" disease as it's written in a more
> traditional UNIX(*) style which has gone thoroughly out of fashion more
> than a decade ago.
Well, sometimes fashion coincides with improvement. But this is
just a generality; I've no opinion about how init is coded and I don't
think Dennys expressed any.
> That's a theoretical argument I agree with: I think the server/ service
> management code shouldn't be part of init especially since it's
> virtually unused but that's really a tiny addition to the process
> starting code which more-or-less has to exist, anyway.
Actually pid1 only needs to start one process, the real init, and
wait the zombies. The real init then takes care of mounts and starts the
services or starts a supervisor to do it. This would seriously shrink pid1.
Didier
::
Re: [DNG] Lead BusyBox developer on…
