From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 09:33:04 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Startup files numbering policy In-Reply-To: <1386188598.1025471.1369174120221.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> References: <1882993282.1023650.1369164262752.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <430640706.1023684.1369164662782.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <20130521221707.64d0815d@skate> <537887127.1024616.1369170640439.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> <20130521232448.27502768@skate> <1386188598.1025471.1369174120221.JavaMail.root@advansee.com> Message-ID: <20130522093304.3b74f29e@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Beno?t Th?baudeau, On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:08:40 +0200 (CEST), Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote: > Maybe. This is what I had done. I mostly wanted to know if you would add a > mechanism for that, which you answered. E.g., PTXdist has a config option with a > default value giving the file name to use for each startup script. I'm not sure we want to have a config option for each and every init script. Especially since with systemd, you have a unit file rather than an init script, so we would have to handle this as well. I think having a default sane numbering is good enough, since we allow the users to customize whatever they want using post-build scripts. Note that I'm not saying the current numbering is perfect, it could be clarified, with a bit documentation saying "from number X to Y, it's basic services that are not network dependent", "from Y to Z, it's this type of services, etc.". I'm just talking about the general approach of just having a default numbering, and leaving the rest of the customization to post-build scripts. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com