On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:44:56PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 08:19:12PM +0100, KatolaZ wrote:
> > Then you can provide any other alternative definition of "init
> > system", but if there is no procedure that does those things for you,
> > then you have to manually do those tasks, at each reboot. In that case
> > the 12-lines init might just spawn a shell
>
> Why would you even need a separate process to spawn the shell? /bin/bash is
> a perfectly capable init that can reap zombies, start processes, do any
> interactive tasks, or be automated (.bashrc, trap EXIT, etc).
...exactly, and that's why I remain convinced that writing a shell is
actually a far more instructive exercise than writing a 12-lines init
that calls rc to do all the work...
>
> Specifying init=/bin/bash via grub on the cmdline is a common rescue
> technique for systems with a broken init. Guess what init implementation
> needs to be rescued this way most often...
>
That's too harsh of you, Adam :D
HND
KatolaZ
--
[ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ]
[ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ]
[ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ]
[ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ]