Re: On the possibility of using upstart...

[Rich Pixley <rich.pixley@palm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1672 bytes --]

On 5/30/12 11:44 , Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Dear Rich,
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Rich Pixley <rich.pixley@palm.com 
> <mailto:rich.pixley@palm.com>> wrote:
>
>     Has anyone considered the possibility of introducing upstart to
>     oe-core, perhaps as an alternative?
>
>     How would people feel about patches to do that?
>
>     I ask because "classic", (read, "former" and "proprietary"), WebOS
>     used upstart and we're considering whether to attempt to continue
>     to do so as we move to oe-core, or whether to attempt to convert
>     all of our components over.  Either way, we have to convert a
>     bunch of service scripts.  And if we're going to convert a bunch
>     of service scripts for oe-core components, (as distinct from
>     porting service scripts for Palm components), then it would be
>     much easier of those patches were to find their way into oe-core
>     rather than needing to be maintained separately.
>
>
> The support for Upstart would be welcome for sure however we need to 
> avoid the same mistakes we did in Systemd support; I'd say it ought to 
> start as a separate layer in meta-oe for the beggining and after it 
> has been properly polished we can evaluate the possibility to merge it 
> onto oe-core.
>
> Current systemd classes can give you a good work base.
At least in debian/ubuntu, the service scripts come with the components 
that use them.  I haven't looked deeply at oe-core in this regard, but 
wouldn't doing this in a separate layer involve a large number of 
append/overlay links to underlying components where the linkages were 
extremely fragile?

--rich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2579 bytes --]