Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 23:53:32 +0100 From: "Gary Palmer" <gpalmer@freebsd.org> To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Congrats on CURRENT 5/1 SNAP... Message-ID: <22643.832632812@palmer.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 May 1996 10:20:23 PDT." <Pine.AUX.3.91.960520095732.25403A-100000@covina.lightside.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jake Hamby wrote in message ID <Pine.AUX.3.91.960520095732.25403A-100000@covina.lightside.com>: > Out of personal preference (whether or not it ever goes in the tree), I'd > also like to reduce the number of statically-linked binaries (i.e. move > /bin to /usr/bin like Linux and Solaris) to those needed for boot and > /stand for emergency use, and revamp the boot scripts to support > SVR4-style /etc/init.d for safer package installs. Again, thanks to > everyone for the high quality of -current and the May 1 SNAP! Some points: 1) After a quick examination of /bin, the majority of the binaries there I'd like to see stay. The couple that I don't quite understand being there (such as `rmail') probably need to stay there for backwards compatability. The current layout of /bin allows you to quickly recover if you screw something up, and to tell the truth I've had occasion to be grateful for the contents of /bin. Perhaps if someone undertakes to make the ``fixit floppy'' idea REALLY work and become 100% useful, I'd agree, but until then (and until I actually remember to keep a fixit floppy around 24/7), I'd vote no. 2) /etc/init.d is EXTREMELY controversial. I was actually thinking recently of introducing a proposoal on -hackers to revive the discussion to see if we could reach some decision (someone else started some other religuous discussion so I held off to save peoples mailboxes and forgot about it ... oops). Basically, I would like to see a /etc/rc.local.d, which meets your requirements of easy package addition, without forcing everyone to go the SYS V route for the entire setup. I actually kinda like the /etc/sysconfig idea, and the way it works in FreeBSD. IF and ONLY IF a decent administration interface is designed and writted for a /etc/rc.d (or whatever else you want to call it) would I be willing to see a move to a rc.d structure. (actually, I can pretty much see a long discussion going on about your last paragraph in particular) Gary -- Gary Palmer FreeBSD Core Team Member FreeBSD: Turning PC's into workstations. See http://www.FreeBSD.ORG/ for info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22643.832632812>