[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141221043910.GA13509@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 07:39:10 +0300
From: "(GalaxyMaster)" <galaxy@...nwall.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: owl-startup
Gremlin, All,
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 10:52:23PM +0300, gremlin@...mlin.ru wrote:
> While working with one project, I faced the inconvenience caused
> by ancient init scripts in owl-startup (once again). However, this
> time I had several hours to perform some rewrite...
What would help a lot (and possibly create more traction) is providing
some rationale behind the rewrite. The way you did it is like "here is
a cat in a box: you may try to play with it but your mileage may vary".
After such a proposal, personally, I don't have any desire to try my
luck.
On a side note, I would never imagine that I'd raise it here and be a
proponent of it, but here it comes: should we start working toward
integrating systemd into Owl? Over the last 6 months I was kind of
"forced" to work extensively with distros that switched to systemd. To
do my job properly I had to learn the design of that framework and it
really looks logical and once you jump through the hoops of the learning
curve you cannot deny that Poettering and Co did a huge amount of work
to standardise the startup & init process. The documentation is also
_very_ good.
Sooner or later we will face the fact that we should decide whether we
go with the trend or make our own path. However, knowing our limited
resources I doubt that we are going very successful with the latter.
Opinions?
--
(GM)
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.
