Make bootscripts more POSIX compliant
ismael.luceno at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 16:31:41 PST 2007
Matthew Burgess escribió:
> On Tuesday 20 February 2007 06:35, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> <snip loads of stuff that lead to a discussion involving the following>:
> 1. POSIX compliant bootscripts - I'm all for this. If anyone wants to install
> a different shell as /bin/sh they should be able to without compromising
> their ability to boot their system without errors. Dan, did you know that
> dash(1) has a '-n' option:
> "If not interactive, read commands but do not execute them. This is useful
> for checking the syntax of shell scripts."
> This might make debugging/testing POSIX compatibility substantially
> quicker :-)
> 2. Parallel bootscripts. Whilst the benefits and drawbacks of doing this are
> unclear at the moment (or at least I think they are), I'm all for having
> these worked on until such a point where folks interested in it can come to
> the list with a hard-sell on why LFS should integrate them :-) If DJ and
> everyone else are happy with having them in contrib, that's fine by me. If
> you'd rather have a svn branch set up, just holler and it'll be yours.
> 3. Replace sysvinit. Again, I've not seen any convincing arguments why we'd
> want to do this but if someone wants to work on it then I can set up a branch
> for such work to be carried out.
I want to integrate InitNG, however I'm very short of time right now, so
if someone wants that too, I will try to help!.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the lfs-dev