From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gilles Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:35:11 -0700 Subject: [Buildroot] issues without busybox In-Reply-To: <53CD77E8.7050208@zacarias.com.ar> References: <98386AE2-7424-4E70-8839-6B642B9938F4@whospot.com> <20140721221555.72df12ca@free-electrons.com> <53CD77E8.7050208@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <3BB80F5F-275A-4495-8E75-40827CA53A50@whospot.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Jul 21, 2014, at 13:28 , Gustavo Zacarias wrote: > On 07/21/2014 05:15 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> I believe one direction we should potentially investigate is to have >> one common skeleton for the base stuff, and then separate additional >> skeletons for busybox init, sysv init and systemd init. > > Hi. > I think i've already mentioned i'm planning on a proposal to revamp the > init system/initscript options. > The idea would be to make them consistent and document how a proper > initscript should be made, and get them all in line with this. > Also interesting would be to make them configurable, in many cases > daemons have options and don't use a configuration file, so let's make > one i say. I don't know, there are already SO MANY alternatives to SystemV init with event driven init like boot scripts, initNG, launchd (my favorite), SMF, runit, syscan, upstart, einit... It's almost a full time job to stay on top of it all as it is. > Actually let's make two :) A default file for read-only > filesystem, and some another that overrides the default, good for RO > filesystems which have a separate partition for that. > We could make the start/stop order configurable too via a file similar > to the device table, if this file lives in the target filesystem it > could be nicer too - but well that depends on how far we'd like to go. > The idea would be to use as much pure shell as possible for this to keep > necessary dependencies to a minimum. > Haven't thought out much of the systemd option yet, i need to dig > somewhat deeper into it, or it could be handled separately since it's > quite different from the usual inits. > >> Regarding the specific issues you're raising here, I'm not exactly sure >> how to solve them: >> >> * For the network, we could make sysvinit depend on ifupdown, but this >> sounds a bit strong. Then it would mean that we should make the init >> script installation conditional. Or maybe installed just by ifupdown >> on one side, and busybox on the other side? > > We can make the different BR2_INIT_* options select what's appropiate, > if someone wants to "roll their own" they can select None. > >> * Regarding start-stop-daemon, I believe all (most?) our init scripts >> rely on start-stop-daemon. So I'm not sure how to handle that... > > We can throw a compatibility function/alias/script for different scenarios. > But i think getting what we want to do on a clean sheet would be best, > and then work on the patches. > Regards.