On 06/17/2016 04:25 PM, KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:
> 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

*Joey Hess* was good developing in perl...

He disappeared from debian. Little is known about him.

Aitor.