torsdagen den 16 augusti 2012 06.59.45 skrev pancake:
> Using mk takes sense as long as init scripts are a dependency based system.
> Please go on. That looks fun
>
> Looks like doing suckless software implies surviving to troll comments.
>
> Your software will be suckless when trolls stop throwing rocks at it.
>
> On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:02, Sam Watkins <sam_AT_nipl.net> wrote:
> > There are dependency based init systems, should use mk for it.
> >
> > net: 1
> > inetd: net
> > 2: getty inetd
> >
> > mk 2 # go to runlevel 2
> >
> > # inetd crashes
> >
> > mk 2 # bring it back to life
> >
> > It would need some sort of procfs view with process names, where unlink
> > sends a term signal, and some extra features for mk, to remove
> > objects in various ways. That could be done in a separate program.
> >
> > mk -rm inetd # stop inetd (and anything that depends on it)
> > mk -rmdeps 1 # go back to just runlevel 1
> >
> > Ok, now I should install some sanity into my brain.
> >
> > I wonder if people get kicked off the list for posting stuff like this?
> >
> > Sam
There is a mk-based init system that was initially presented here:
http://9fans.net/archive/2009/10/375
perhaps a start?
Received on Thu Aug 16 2012 - 10:53:40 CEST