[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPLrYETYoc3ruVgEigXr0ApDp6_=6AmY=PLN+dO5-y4Lm-GC-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:19:00 +0200
From: Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: Vision for new platform
>> I understand that and instead systemd I prefer to stay with
>> sysvinit+openrc... but the only solution is to prepare a new init
>> stuff from scratch (systemd+udev+dbus alternative). Do you see another
>> solution?
>
> Maybe new init stuff, maybe daemon that will control other daemons and
> get launched from inittab for example.
> I'm just trying to warn that this must not be a second systemd and
> that's all. Sure that adequate non-bloated alternative should exist.
> Maybe it should be developed as a part of new platform that we
> all want to have, because as an alternative alone it will not be
> accepted well.
musl libc is an alternative to glibc etc. We talk about the vision of
a new platform, so if this new solution would arise, then its natural
that init stuff should be developed as a project related to musl. The
main question is whether we should start such a project (new init) or
may remain with existing init (sysvinid / systemd / runit etc.)?
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
