On Sun, Apr 05, 2026 at 12:25:51PM +0100, Rainer Weikusat via Dng wrote:
> Didier Kryn <kryn@???> writes:
> > Le 04/04/2026 à 18:49, Rainer Weikusat via Dng a écrit :
> >> int main(void)
> >> {
> >> extern int wait(int *);
> >> while (1) wait(0);
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >
> > Well, this is for the second-stage init; but it must also respond
> > to reboot requests and, maybe, monitor at least one getty.
> >
> > And it comes after a first stage which needs to start some daemon
> > launcher. Otherwise it is pointless to reap processes since there
> > arent any (~:
>
> That's what the shell-script was for. At worst, if a shell script cannot
> yet be executed (seems very improbable), one would need to use two
> executable binaries, one which launches the startup script and then
> execs the other which waits for orphaned processes. There's really no
> reason why init should do anything else, this can all be provided by
> other processes/ programs. Poettering is a dolt. Or an early attempt at
> creating an LLM which went really awry.
>
> I might eventually create something that's compatible SysV rc based on
> this idea. On the outset, it looks like an interesting project.
Well "zombie eating" can also be done in a shell script, so you
wouldn't need much as /init script. Perhaps like so (reflecting a
"normal" idea of use of sysvinit):
------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
eatzombie() { X=$?; }
trap "eatzombie" CHILD
/etc/init.d/rc S
/etc/init/d/rc 2
------------------------------
Though then here's also the startup of "getty"s for virtual terminals
and protecting the pid 1 process against spurious signals, etc; i.e.
all those additional things that are important and maybe necessary
although a bit less sparkly to discuss.
Ralph.
::
Re: [DNG] Good thing we don't use s…
