Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:13:09 -0600
From:      Daniel Robbins <drobbins@funtoo.org>
To:        Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
Cc:        "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Replacing rc(8) (Was: FreeBSD Boot Times)
Message-ID:  <CAPDOV4_Fsj_QCLDWSs3o5qiDKS2hTH4qBf8fwJftne8KJNXy1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201745040.1949@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References:  <4FDF6177.5050608@unsane.co.uk> <4FDF6586.9060501@gentoo.org> <4FDFB166.2040709@FreeBSD.org> <4FDFB44D.9090308@gentoo.org> <4FE0ADCD.9010109@FreeBSD.org> <4FE0C123.8030301@gentoo.org> <CAGH67wRidMZrzjzTSdwud%2BZ5V--wOTN8CHXOWcOr%2BE5XHYo2rA@mail.gmail.com> <4FE0F773.1080403@gentoo.org> <CAGH67wQdb-c0Kf=60rkaJSH8Hd0OjwCi=rQQMzGq8xfp2q7b=Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FE100F9.2050009@funtoo.org> <20120620073920.GA5300@lonesome.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201618560.75278@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAPDOV49kkOdeV%2B6LVW5j5PO6VYrrNVqWZEksc_GzvWHjbufoAQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201722520.1856@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <CAPDOV4_ufNGyheDAhPxfndJ7WtH_u=5z7mrLtW-5-a9BMbCswg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201745040.1949@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Wojciech Puchar
<wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
>
> actually i am happy with current system, but maybe others.
>
> My most important ideas are:
>
> - any new system should not be more complex - ability to keep all flags and
> main config in single file (/etc/rc.conf) must persist. I don't want mess.
> And for sure not only me.
>
> - once again - the less files, the better.
>
> Some time ago i had to use linux (fortunately no longer needed). As i don't
> use it normally i just took debian installer that i remembered it WAS
> usable.
>
> After seeing the incredible complexity of /etc structure, not just rc
> scripts, i deleted most of it and put startup sequence in single file.
>
> It was plain horror.

I think our current system for OpenRC is pretty elegant. Initscripts
go in /etc/init.d. Runlevels are defined as directories in
/etc/runlevels. The default runlevel is /etc/runlevels/default.

To add a service to a runlevel, you type "rc-update add <service>
<runlevelname>".

To start/stop all services according to runlevel, you type "rc".

To switch runlevels, you type "rc <runlevel>", like "rc mobile".

> yes i am. but that joke is clear suggestion that we have already tens of
> thousands better or worse made ports!

Well, if ports maintenance is the much bigger problem we can also look
at coordinating efforts there in the future.

> if you have idea how to improve existing rc.d AND make ports working as is
> then go on.

I think that if FreeBSD used OpenRC (maybe initially with a
compatibility layer for existing initscripts) then it would make it
easier for us all to transition to a  compatible ports format, since
we could use the same ports initscripts. Then, an nginx port could
contain an initscript that could work on both FreeBSD and
Gentoo/Funtoo Linux. This could definitely open up the possibility of
collaborating more easily in the future on ports maintenance.

But collaborating on ports is such a big topic, and initscript
compatibility is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of
things.

Is the maintenance of ports a huge issue for FreeBSD, and would you be
interested in looking into working with Gentoo and Funtoo on sharing
build scripts?

> For me it is OK.

You know, I often wonder why so much effort in the Linux world is
spent on the first few seconds of a system's uptime. So I definitely
understand and appreciate that you are not ready to make reckless
changes to your boot process.

>From my perspective, the upstart/launchd/systemd/udev mess in Linux is
ugly, and we are promoting OpenRC as a sane alternative. So it helps
us to have other distributions and operating systems using it. Because
for Gentoo and Funtoo, OpenRC *is* our standard design, and we want to
promote something more "normal" than the other stuff coming from
Linux. It helps us to fight that battle when we have a broader base of
users.

I think that is one of the motivations of reaching out to FreeBSD --
the Gentoo and Funtoo user-base is more aligned with the sensibilities
of FreeBSD than the other Linux distros moving to upstart/launchd,
etc.

I think that may be a major benefit of FreeBSD using OpenRC -- that
you will be treated as a respected and listened-to member of the
OpenRC community. I don't know if you have been following some of the
politics in Linux recently, but a lot of this service management stuff
has been almost shoved down our throats with the justification that
it's necessary for Linux dominating the desktop. (!)

Best Regards,

Daniel



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPDOV4_Fsj_QCLDWSs3o5qiDKS2hTH4qBf8fwJftne8KJNXy1Q>