Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:26:41 +0200 - Lorenz <lorenzo.ru.g@???>:

> Il giorno lun 7 ago 2023 alle ore 10:58 al3xu5 via Dng
> <dng@???> ha scritto
>
> >
> > And here comes the question: which is the "right" init I should choose
> > *now* when doing a fresh (Daedalus) installation?
> >
>
> You should choose the one that best fits your needs, given the sets of
> features that each available init provides.
> example: if you want declarative services the only choice is openrc,
> while if you prefer shell scripts you can choose sysvinit or runit;
> if you need service supervision your choice is runit and openrc; if you
> want cgrups by default on all services choose openrc.
> If you don't know what I'm talking about or don't really care, choose
> sysvinit as it's the most simple and tested alternative availabe right
> now.

Lorenzo,

If it were for me, sysv would be fine, and I would keep it.
But in the future of Debian-based setups it cannot be, for the reasons we
know.

Waiting to have a "pure" runit setup for when sysv will be no longer
usable, I think I understand that then it seems to be more appropriate to
have a hybrid system with sysv for pid 1 (and system startup) and runit to
manage services.

What I would like to understand more deeply are the reasons why currently
a "pure" runit setup /under Devuan or other Debian-based derivatives/
could be problematic.

Is this just because the management of some system services is missing
with runit (missing service scripts)?
Or there are other reasons which made the hybrid mechanism necessary
for/during system initialization?
Or what else?

Regards
alexus


--
Property is theft! (P-J Proudhon) -- True today more than ever.
______________________________________________________________________

Public GPG/PGP key: 8FC2 3121 2803 86E9 F7D8 B624 DA50 835B 2624 A36B