Init Patch for review and evaluation

[Paul Fox]

 > On Sunday 23 December 2007 01:36, Eugene Bordenkircher wrote:
 > > On Sun, 2007-12-23 at 00:39 +0000, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
 > > >
 > > > Sorry. I don't think that this is worth doing.
 > > >
 > > > The patch itself is not bad, the idea of "fixing" init is.
 > > >
 ...
 > >
 > > Your arguments against init and for runit seem fairly sound to me.  To
 > > be honest, I've never had the opportunity to play with runit.  I will
 > > try it in our device and see if it fits our needs better.
 > 
 > If it does not, can I ask you to sacrifice five minutes of your time
 > and explain what do you need to achieve, and why runit utilities
 > cannot help.

why this pushback?  i've not read the patch closely, but it's
certainly a feature i've missed.  i'm sure runit is a fine init
replacement (we've used minit in the past on some products, and
i've used daemontools elsewhere), but we also sometimes use regular
busybox init because it's easy, and often serves our purposes. 
and whether one uses the reconfig-on-HUP feature of init in
production or not (i probably wouldn't), it's certainly sometimes
convenenient during product development.

to be clear -- i don't really care if it goes in or not, but
given all the other special-purpose options and commands we've
let into busybox over the years (colored ls output?  wget status
bar? length?), i'd think we'd let in a prominent historic feature of
traditional init.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at brightstareng.com