Mail archive
alpine-devel

Re: [alpine-devel] Alpine features and the future

From: Shiz <hi_at_shiz.me>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 00:00:09 +0100

> On 4 Dec 2017, at 21:30, Drew DeVault <ddevault_at_vistarmedia.com> wrote:
>
> Personally, I would recommend a minimal busybox build plus ubase without
> a second thought, and I would recommend cautiously but earnestly
> considering sbase+ubase.

When I played around with sbase around half a year ago, it seemed rather
immature to be frank. I fear a lot, especially in our old build system,
would break with it.

> I would also recommend just porting shadow over using busybox user
> management tooling. I think `useradd` et al has a more Unix design than
> `adduser` et al. Thankfully the shadow codebase hasn't yet been
> corrupted beyond saving by the broader Linux ecosystem's influence.

Definitely agree with this. I am also of the opinion that `useradd` and
friends seem more commonly used, and it’s a shame to have to recommend
using the shadow package for everyone that wants to either use it
themselves or have tooling using it.

>> 4. OpenRC. Should Alpine switch to an alternative like runit, s6
>> or svc? Should /sbin/init be sinit?
>
> I had experience with runit on agunix, and I really liked it. To me it
> seemed really close to the ideal init system design. The main problem
> with it was the codebase, which is pretty awful. I would love to see a
> new init project with a similar design and better code, maybe with some
> more porcelain service management commands too (the agunix port shipped
> with a patch to let you do `sv enable nginx` instead of manually adding
> symlinks).

s6 with a porcelain layer still seems very interesting in that aspect
to me.

>> 5. In case of replacing BusyBox with something that lacks an
>> editor, what would become the default? nvi, vim, neovim, elvis
>> traditional vi, nano or vis? Or maybe there will be two like
>> in OpenBSD or a load as in Slackware?
>
> I'd just do a minimal (static?) vim build and forget about it.
>
>> 6. What would be the default shell? mksh, pksh or dash? Or maybe
>> bash?
>
> dash
>
> I'd like to start sending some patches to realize this. I have a tracker
> for things I want to work on for Alpine:
>
> https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/alpine
>
> I'm going to start with non-controversial changes like adding doas,
> ubase, and shadow to aports while we discuess the harder points.

Any particular reason you prefer dash over ash? I’m curious. :-)

>
> --
> Drew DeVault

- Shiz





---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Received on Tue Dec 05 2017 - 00:00:09 GMT