Make bootscripts more POSIX compliant

Ismael Luceno 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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20070221/06491068/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list