On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Lennart Poettering
<mzerqung(a)0pointer.de> wrote:
On Wed, 26.05.10 09:07, Adam Williamson (awilliam(a)redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 12:42 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Casey Dahlin <cdahlin(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 05:45:07PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 25.05.10 10:21, Casey Dahlin (cdahlin(a)redhat.com) wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > 3) Cutting down on the forking by replacing some of the shell scripts...
cool
> > > 3a) With C code... really?
> >
> > This does make a lot of sense to me, initscripts being scripts is a
> > major slowdown factor
> > by itself.
> >
> > It is not like you want to edit the scripts all the time, so there is
> > no reason for them being scripts.
>
> I beg to differ. I've had to create or modify initscripts quite often,
> either as a sysadmin or a packager. If this is now going to require C
> coding skills, I'm not going to be able to do it. I don't think it's
> safe to assume that everyone who needs to write or modify an initscript
> is going to know C. What about people who write apps that need
> initscripts in some other language?
THERE ARE NO PLANS TO SHIP COMPILED INIT SCRIPTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!
The plan is to reduce what is currenlty done in files like
/etc/init.d/messagebus to files like
http://0pointer.de/public/dbus.service.
Also:
Description=D-Bus System Bus
This seems unnecessary. Can we default to the name of the script? If
this isn't translated, I don't see how it's more interesting than just
"dbus".
Requires=basic.target sockets.target dbus.socket
After=basic.target sockets.target dbus.socket
What does this goop mean and why is it necessary?