From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 20 20:02:57 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA15127 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:02:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hamby1.lightside.net (hamby1.lightside.net [198.81.209.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA15120; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (jehamby@localhost) by hamby1.lightside.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA00418; Mon, 20 May 1996 20:05:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: hamby1.lightside.net: jehamby owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 20:05:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Jake Hamby X-Sender: jehamby@hamby1 To: Gary Palmer cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Congrats on CURRENT 5/1 SNAP... In-Reply-To: <22643.832632812@palmer.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 May 1996, Gary Palmer wrote: > 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. Okay, but there are already copies of some of these in /stand! Also, if nothing else, I would like a shared version of /bin/sh and /bin/csh for faster interactive use, with a static /sbin/sh for boot-up scripts only. Comments? > 2) /etc/init.d is EXTREMELY controversial. I was actually thinking Yes, that's why I deleted the rest of your paragraph. :-) The main reasons against /etc/init.d seem to be NIH and a general religious distrust of anything System V. I would like to keep the existing /etc/rc and make this simply for local ports, but the only problem is that ports sometimes need to go in the middle of the boot sequence, rather at the end. If they ONLY needed to go at the end, and relative ordering didn't matter, then install scripts could simply "cat >>/etc/rc.local" but this is not the case, and so rc-style boot is so much more flexible than any of the alternatives discussed, that I would highly recommend it myself! But enough discussion, I think we simply need to DO something, post patches, and then let them stand (or be voted down) on their own merits. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |Jake Hamby| Ask me about Unix, FreeBSD, Solaris, The Tick, Motif, or NT, eh?| ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Hi, can I interest you in buying some meat over the phone?" -Lotus commercial