|
@@ -98,7 +98,6 @@ packages do not:
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Daemontools (http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html)
|
|
|
* Epoch (http://universe2.us/epoch.html)
|
|
|
- * Finit (http://github.com/troglobit/finit)
|
|
|
* Minit (http://www.fefe.de/minit)
|
|
|
* Perp (http://b0llix.net/perp/)
|
|
|
* Runit (http://smarden.org/runit/)
|
|
@@ -121,7 +120,9 @@ The basic problem of starting login sessions only after system initialisation ha
|
|
|
partially) completed is naturally solved with a dependency-managing solution; you can have the tty
|
|
|
sessions (getty) depend on some other service unit which, in turn, depends on the basic system
|
|
|
initialisation services. In non-dependency-handling managers this must usually be special-cased
|
|
|
-(eg an "inittab" which is processed once all services have started).
|
|
|
+(eg an "inittab" which is processed once all services have started). Some inits (eg finit) use the
|
|
|
+"runlevels" concept from SysV init; they typically start services in run level 0 before any other
|
|
|
+services, which gives a kind of single-depth dependency tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all the above in mind, I feel that dependency management allows generally greater flexibility
|
|
|
and control in how services are managed. While this might not always be useful, and comes at a
|
|
@@ -313,3 +314,16 @@ to define services without any programming knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The documentation for GNU Shepherd is currently somewhat incomplete. It appears to offer full
|
|
|
dependency management however.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Finit (http://github.com/troglobit/finit)
|
|
|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|
|
|
+The Finit "fast init" system is minimalistic, with most service configuration via a single line.
|
|
|
+However, it also has some advanced features with an obvious lean towards providing practical
|
|
|
+functionality and reducing external system dependencies. Finit supports "conditions" which
|
|
|
+effectively allow it to support (hard) dependencies. It also supports S6 and Systemd -compatible
|
|
|
+readiness notifications.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Feature-wise, key differences compared to Dinit are probably lack of support for soft
|
|
|
+dependencies, and finer-grained control of individual services (dinit has a raft of service
|
|
|
+options which finit lacks). The finit configuration syntax is noticably terser than dinit's.
|