Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Sunday November 23 2014, @01:39AM   Printer-friendly
from the first-do-no-harm dept.

I am the maintainer of the Epoch Init System, a single threaded Linux init system with non-intrusiveness in mind, and I'm preparing to release 2.0. It's mostly a code cleanup release, but while I'm at it, I thought I'd ask the Soylent community what features they'd like to see. I'm open to all good ideas, but I'm wary of feature creep, so as a result, I won't consider the following:

* multithreaded/parallel services, because that goes against design goals of simplicity and harms customizability
* mounting support or networking support; it's an init system, use busybox if you need a mount command.

So what do soylentils want to see in the next release of the Epoch Init System?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by rleigh on Monday November 24 2014, @10:49AM

    by rleigh (4887) on Monday November 24 2014, @10:49AM (#119374) Homepage

    This is correct, we did have parallel boot with sysvinit for years before systemd. SuSE developed insserv and startpar which were later adopted by Debian and formalised in the LSB. insserv reads the dependency information from the init script headers and computes a dependency graph to start and stop scripts in parallel in the correct order (similar to make). At boot startpar can read the graph and start up services in parallel.

    This isn't quite as clever as systemd units, but it works well. And if you can to debug it, the graph is saved in /etc/init.d/.depend.* so you can read them, and insserv itself can do various diagnostics as well. When originally converting to dependency-based boot this was run on all init scripts distribution-wide to make sure a complete graph of everything was correct.

    Regards,
    Roger