On 03/02/10 at 02:39pm, Allan McRae wrote:

Hi all,

Looking in the bug tracker, there are 35 bug reports for initscripts. That represents about 10% of bugs...

I'm not really sure who is in charge of initscripts these days, but how about a group of use gets together on IRC some time in the future and try getting through a bunch of these bug reports?

Allan

More than happy to help. --

Am 02.03.2010 05:39, schrieb Allan McRae:

Hi all,

Looking in the bug tracker, there are 35 bug reports for initscripts. That represents about 10% of bugs...

I'm not really sure who is in charge of initscripts these days, but how about a group of use gets together on IRC some time in the future and try getting through a bunch of these bug reports?

Allan

There's lots of stuff there I am assigned to, but I don't seem to get to do initscripts hacking these days. Just a remark: There are tons of patches for the encryption part, most of which extend the crypttab format. This is a very bad idea, crypttab is already and almost unparsable mess and adding more and more things to it won't improve that. My original plan was to rewrite crypto support entirely to use small and convenient config files with lots of options (and just add backward compatibility with crypttab) - but again, I didn't get to it. As for the tons of networking suggestions: There's requests for very complex things that should rather be implemented in netcfg, as it is much better suited for it (different bonding models for example just don't fit into the initscripts setup). Personally, I would like to remove everything but basic ethernet support from initscripts (that would also include removing wireless, but some people were too strictly against that). What I am saying is, investing time into integrating more network stuff into initscripts is time wasted, as complex setups like bonding or bridging can be much better implemented in netcfg and the work should be spent on that instead. Just my 2 cents, no idea when I get to actively work on initscripts again though.