[Thomas Goirand] >> Yeah, I discovered that OpenRC had a similar approach, but without >> staying compatible with our current set of scripts in /etc/init.d/. > > [1] Sorry... what?!? :) > > It's perfectly compatible. You just decide what you want to > (re-)implement or not. In fact, that's one of the very strong point of > OpenRC: it allows a very smooth migration away from sysv-rc, where one > can decide what to re-write or not.
I realise I was a bit unclear. I mean that openrc scripts can not be used with sysv-rc and file-rc (or systemd or upstart), not that openrc is unable to handle LSB compatible init.d scripts. So a package providing a openrc script will not be started on a system using sysv-rc, if I understand it correctly. Did I misundertand this? I realise openrc can handle all the existing init.d scripts with LSB headers just fine. > Since last summer, OpenRC has full support for LSB headers. Also, I > believe that OpenRC is the only init system replacement which allows > to mix dependencies with LSB or it's own implementation. That is not the case. Both systemd and upstart allow this as well. >> This approach also make it easier to identify the "simple" init.d >> scripts, and possibly also make it easier to integrate them with for >> example systemd and upstart by providing a replacement for the >> init-d-script script or by extending init-d-script. > > Unfortunately, it doesn't, because there will be problems with > dependencies, as much as I understand. Yes, different name spaces will be a challenge. But it can be handled by deciding to keep the name spaces in sync, using the same name for the same service in LSB headers, upstart jobs and systemd jobs. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140206110622.gj1...@ulrik.uio.no
