On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:44:15 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For speed, there are a *lot* of changes/improvements that could be
> made.
Yes, re-writing the backend in C whilst keeping /etc/init.d/
and /etc/conf.d/ as shell scripts is a good start :)
> What I would like to see
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:20:54 +0100
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If that's what you want, don't use bash in the first place. I would
> agree that using bash for parsing is a pain in the but Daniel is
> right in that you're not going to be able to maintain posix
> compatibility. If you
For speed, there are a *lot* of changes/improvements that could be made.
What I would like to see is the ability to get to a login prompt
before startup is actually completed. Have all the non-essential
startup stuff run in the background.
Yes, this would require a sophisticated system since you
On Friday 09 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:49:57 -0700
>
> "Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In other words:
> >
> > busybox + single rcS file = fastest and simplest, smallest, best for
> > very small filesystems, not as flexible
> >
> > bash + gentoo basel
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 11:49:05AM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:05:52 +0100
> Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One issue is that any valid character is allowed in WPAPSK,
> > > including ;
> >
> > Good point, but excluding newline, right? I can't try it, but rt2
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:05:52 +0100
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One issue is that any valid character is allowed in WPAPSK,
> > including ;
>
> Good point, but excluding newline, right? I can't try it, but rt2500's
> own settings file format does not allow for newline in WPAPSK.
N
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 10:17:21AM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:51:29 +0100
> Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That works with your ; approach too, as well as with the
> > newline-separated approach:
> >
> > replace="
> > 4d 1280 768 24
> > 5c 1400 1050 16
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:51:29 +0100
Harald van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That works with your ; approach too, as well as with the
> newline-separated approach:
>
> replace="
> 4d 1280 768 24
> 5c 1400 1050 16
> "
>
> IFS=';
> '
> #set -f
> set -- ${replace}
> #set +f
> unset IFS
>
>
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:29:04AM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:03:04 -0800
> Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jakub Moc wrote:
> > > Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> > >> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > >>> The actual scripts themselves can be
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:27:58 +0900
Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > FreeBSD sh + Gentoo baselayout = cold boot in around 4 seconds
> > Going to multi-user from single user after a boot is under 2 seconds
> > (times measured from when ini
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 20:27:06 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > Please read over what's been talked about elsewhere in this thread.
> > He is not trying to break existing functionality at all. Only
> > extend it to be posix aware (add
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:03:04 -0800
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> >> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> >>> The actual scripts themselves can be re-worked if they need to be
> >>> - this problem only when the arrays are
Jakub Moc wrote:
> Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
>> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
>>> The actual scripts themselves can be re-worked if they need to be -
>>> this problem only when the arrays are used in config files.
>> i guess my point was i think we really need to be consistent he
Quoting Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
FreeBSD sh + Gentoo baselayout = cold boot in around 4 seconds
Going to multi-user from single user after a boot is under 2 seconds
(times measured from when init starts rc - the difference is probably
because the all my local mounts are still mounted)
I
Mike Frysinger napsal(a):
> On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
>> The actual scripts themselves can be re-worked if they need to be -
>> this problem only when the arrays are used in config files.
>
> i guess my point was i think we really need to be consistent here ... either
> arr
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Please read over what's been talked about elsewhere in this thread. He
> is not trying to break existing functionality at all. Only extend it to
> be posix aware (additionally)
erm, no ... our code is a superset of POSIX, so technically yes he is bre
He's not going to waste someone else's time, and as he said there will be
compatibility with current configuration files, I don't think there's any
downside to users.
FWIW, speaking as a user, I value stability over speed. But if I have a
promise of stability (i.e. my current configs will s
On Friday 09 February 2007, Ned Ludd wrote:
> baselayout is only about a half of a meg these days and probably
> getting smaller/faster with the addition of the multicall rc/runscript
> work he has been doing.
>
> Adding bash also requires ncurses which in turn mostly requires having
> a c++ aware
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 14:49:57 -0700
"Daniel Robbins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In other words:
>
> busybox + single rcS file = fastest and simplest, smallest, best for
> very small filesystems, not as flexible
>
> bash + gentoo baselayout = most flexible, biggest, slower, best for
> feature-rich
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 14:49 -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> On 2/8/07, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As somebody that's had to hand write many of those kinds of scripts. A
> > single rcS is not very ideal. Our init scripts are in fact mostly usable
> > by busybox. Granted there are a few s
On 2/8/07, Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As somebody that's had to hand write many of those kinds of scripts. A
single rcS is not very ideal. Our init scripts are in fact mostly usable
by busybox. Granted there are a few special special cases, but then Roy
is offering to update those for fr
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 13:23 -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> I sort of missed this conversation, so apologies in advance if this
> has already been covered, but wanted to say that gentoo's initscripts
> are generally not suited for embedded systems.
>
> So making baselayout busybox-compatible doesn'
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > did you get a chance to see how hard it would be to integrate the
> > bash array code ?
>
> Integrate into what? You mean integrate into other shells?
mmm i thought you were looking to parse the config
I sort of missed this conversation, so apologies in advance if this
has already been covered, but wanted to say that gentoo's initscripts
are generally not suited for embedded systems.
So making baselayout busybox-compatible doesn't seem to be worth the
disruption and headaches it would cause. It
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:01:08 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > some init.d scripts use arrays as well
> >
> > Do we know which ones?
>
> grep for it :p
> netmount for sure right now
Well, netmount is baselayout, so that will kinda be done by default :)
> i guess my point was i
On Thursday 08 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > In the current code I'm running it's only the network stuff that
> > > uses arrays. If you're thinking about /sbin/functions.sh, well that
> > > c
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 23:42:14 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > In the current code I'm running it's only the network stuff that
> > uses arrays. If you're thinking about /sbin/functions.sh, well that
> > can stay as bash as it's
On Wednesday 07 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> In the current code I'm running it's only the network stuff that uses
> arrays. If you're thinking about /sbin/functions.sh, well that can stay
> as bash as it's not used by baselayout anymore.
some init.d scripts use arrays as well
-mike
pgpim
Roy Marples ha scritto:
Hi List
As some of you may be aware, I've started work on baselayout-2 which is
basically re-tooling it in C. One of the side goals is to eliminate the
need for using bash. You'll be pleased to know that it's working well
enough to boot Gentoo/FreeBSD.
[...]
what about
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 01:03:56 -0800
"Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:09:11PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:14:49 +
> > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why? What's wrong with requiring a shell that supports various
>
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:09:11PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:14:49 +
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why? What's wrong with requiring a shell that supports various
> > features beyond what POSIX specifies? Granted, choice of shell is
> > good, but not if
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 22:27:46 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > No, I'm just interesting in killing bash array requirements in the
> > network config file.
>
> you need to kill them everywhere then ... network config isnt the
> onl
Roy Marples wrote:
> This email is about network configuration. Before I joined Gentoo,
> network configuration was done in bash arrays like so (note, that the
> variable name was changed in baselayout-1.11)
>
> ifconfig_eth0=(
> "10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0"
> "10.1.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.
Roy Marples wrote:
> Hi List
>
> As some of you may be aware, I've started work on baselayout-2 which is
> basically re-tooling it in C. One of the side goals is to eliminate the
> need for using bash. You'll be pleased to know that it's working well
> enough to boot Gentoo/FreeBSD.
Hm...
> So,
Roy Marples napsal(a):
> This email is about network configuration. Before I joined Gentoo,
> network configuration was done in bash arrays like so (note, that the
> variable name was changed in baselayout-1.11)
>
> ifconfig_eth0=(
> "10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0"
> "10.1.1.2 netmask 255.255
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> H, just how many features should a config file have beyond the
> setting of variables?
In the case of networking, the ability to define the functions for the
various hooks. In most systems these will not be needed, but where
policy routing etc is used
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> No, I'm just interesting in killing bash array requirements in the
> network config file.
you need to kill them everywhere then ... network config isnt the only file
that utilizes arrays
-mike
pgpj1mYCh71a3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> This email is about network configuration. Before I joined Gentoo,
> network configuration was done in bash arrays like so (note, that the
> variable name was changed in baselayout-1.11)
>
> ifconfig_eth0=(
> "10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0"
> "10.1.1.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:39:03 -0500
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Hopefully I've justified this enough :)
>
> justified what ? this thread started off killing bash array
> requirements in the network config file and now it looks lik
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:26:32 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:28:04 +
> Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think it's more that you're expected to justify *why* the bash
> > requirement is so bad, given the cost of changing.
>
> 1) Lack of c
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 19:42 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> > You need to define what shell (or subset) you want to parse it. 'sh'
> > itself varies from platform to platform.
>
> our standard has always ("always" is relative here; let's say "cu
Or perhaps,
Something a little more explicit might work? In instances such as the
ifconfig lines, it's to create eth0 aliases (such as eth0:0), so perhaps
that could look like:
ifconfig_eth0:0 = "10.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0"
ifconfig_eth0:1 = "10.1.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.0"
For
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
> You need to define what shell (or subset) you want to parse it. 'sh'
> itself varies from platform to platform.
our standard has always ("always" is relative here; let's say "current") been
the bash superset of POSIX ... if a request comes up
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Roy Marples wrote:
> Hopefully I've justified this enough :)
justified what ? this thread started off killing bash array requirements in
the network config file and now it looks like your killing the shell
everywhere ?
to be honest, unless the new code is really go
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:09:26 +
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The stuff that handles our networking maybe written in A.N.
> Other-Language (Mrs.), but keeping /etc/conf.d/net readable by a shell
> script does have advantages.
You need to define what shell (or subset) you want to pars
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:28:04 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's more that you're expected to justify *why* the bash
> requirement is so bad, given the cost of changing.
1) Lack of choice.
Gentoo is all about giving the user choice. baselayout even supports
other init s
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:14:49 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? What's wrong with requiring a shell that supports various
> features beyond what POSIX specifies? Granted, choice of shell is
> good, but not if it's at the expense of functionality or ease of use.
H, just how
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:11:31 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| >Now, this email isn't about the merits of bash, nor the fact that
| >it's in base system profile so we can use it anyway, blah blah blah.
| >embedded has a vested interest in not using bash and I have a
| >personal interest
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 21:11 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:03:50 -0500
> Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What so wrong with bash?
>
> Unsuited to an init system that wants to work everywhere, like embedded
> systems.
>
> Also, being tied to one shell causes proble
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:04:59 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:58:52 +
| Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | Right, and bash arrays are not shell
| > | http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/toc.htm
| >
| > Sure they're shell. They're just
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:03:50 -0500
Olivier Crete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What so wrong with bash?
Unsuited to an init system that wants to work everywhere, like embedded
systems.
Also, being tied to one shell causes problems when that shell breaks.
Witness baselayout problems regarding bash-
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:58:52 +
Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Right, and bash arrays are not shell
> | http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/toc.htm
>
> Sure they're shell. They're just not POSIX.
Maybe I should have been more clear.
Anything in /etc/conf.d/ should be
On Tue, 2007-06-02 at 20:34 +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Keeping it as is has the advantage that an
> > upgrade/downgrade cycle wouldn't change much in functionality based on
> > config, which is pretty good (ie, backwards compatibility). In this
> > case, I'm not sure legacy is all that bad, sim
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 20:31:03 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:27:15 +
| Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:09:26 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > wrote:
| > | The stuff that handles our networking maybe written in
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:18:43 -0500
Seemant Kulleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgive me if this is just noise, but I just wanted to say I agree
> fully with ferdy. As I was reading Roy's email, and I looked at the
> net config sample he had in there, I thought "well, what's actually
> wrong wi
On Tuesday 06 February 2007, Michael Hanselmann wrote:
> XML! Actually, no. For me, libconfig[1] turned out to be very easy to
> work with. Its config file format is easy to write by hand and the
> parser resides in the library.
On a simialr note there's libconfuse[1], which uses one of the most c
Forgive me if this is just noise, but I just wanted to say I agree fully
with ferdy. As I was reading Roy's email, and I looked at the net
config sample he had in there, I thought "well, what's actually wrong
with this?" Keeping it as is has the advantage that an
upgrade/downgrade cycle wouldn't
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:09:26 + Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| The stuff that handles our networking maybe written in A.N.
| Other-Language (Mrs.), but keeping /etc/conf.d/net readable by a shell
| script does have advantages.
He didn't say "make it not readable by a shell". He was sug
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 19:27:40 +0100
"Fernando J. Pereda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 06:17:16PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > Hi List
>
> Hi Roy,
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > So, to free baselayout of forcing bash down our throats I/we am/are
> > looking at re-writing our network
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 06:17:16PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> Hi List
Hi Roy,
> [snip]
>
> So, to free baselayout of forcing bash down our throats I/we am/are
> looking at re-writing our network setup, including configuration.
>
> Who's got any bright ideas for a new config then? Lets brain sto
Hi List
As some of you may be aware, I've started work on baselayout-2 which is
basically re-tooling it in C. One of the side goals is to eliminate the
need for using bash. You'll be pleased to know that it's working well
enough to boot Gentoo/FreeBSD.
Now, this email isn't about the merits of ba
61 matches
Mail list logo
