On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:36:49 +0100
KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:14:10PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:31:28 +0200
> > Irrwahn <irrwahn@???> wrote:
> >
> > > As for the educational value: I fail to see what good does
> > > learning things already proven wrong.
> >
> > I don't know what got proven wrong, but as a result of this thread,
> > the average DNG inhabitant now knows as much about init as I, the
> > author of Manjaro Experiments. The average DNG inhabitant who has
> > been following along with this thread can now hold his own on the
> > supervision@??? list, and that's something quite
> > impressive. I'd say this has been of tremendous educational value. I
> > know I've been educated.
> >
>
> I am sorry to look harsh here, but what the DNG list might have
> "learned" from this "experiment" is just to create a process which
> forks a child and wait forever for its children and grand-children to
> die, to reap them properly. This has little to do with init systems
> for unix, except for the fact that the initialisation of a unix
> systems needs at least one process that waits to reap dead children,
> like those 10 lines of code do.

Call runit or s6 from the forked child, create a shutdown script, and
you pretty much have a system that can boot and shut down without
requiring journal restores or fscks. A practical system that you can
work with.

[snip]

> Unfortunately, system initialisation is really a bit more complicated
> than that, whether you like it or not.

I don't think so. Here's my experimental
Felker/daemontools-encore/littkit initialization of Plop Linux. As soon
as I finish the two second edition books I'm working on, perhaps I'll
do the same thing with Devuan.

The way I see it, if a machine works for you, day in, day out, through
multiple power cycles and orderly shutdowns, it's being properly
initted.


SteveT

Steve Litt
June 2016 featured book: Troubleshooting: Why Bother?
http://www.troubleshooters.com/twb