Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:50:53 -0400 From: Coranth Gryphon <gryphon@healer.com> To: chuckr@eng.umd.edu, gryphon@healer.com, kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, patl@asimov.volant.org Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, hackers@freebsd.org, julian@ref.tfs.com, ports@freebsd.org, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509211750.NAA00729@healer.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pat writes:
> Coranth Gryphon <gryphon@healer.com> wrote:
> +> When are you going to start a daemon in more than one place?
> +> Or set a global environment variable, then change it later?
> +>
> +> Define it as "Run Level N" includes all "Run Level 0..N-1". Simple.
> If it really were that simple, why didn't SVr4 do it that way?
You're asking why an OS that I think has a lousy implementation
of run levels didn't do it right in the first place? :-)
Answer: I don't know why they didn't do it right. That doesn't
stop us from doing it right, does it?
> I'm not suggesting that we become System V. But if they have a better
> solution to one of our problems, why not adopt it? I have no problem
> with differences that provide some significant technical advantage.
Granted. I think run-levels are not a bad thing. I see no reason to
adopt them, since I consider what we have to work fine. But lots
of people seem to want run-levels. OK. We'll do it.
> But differences just because "we aren't System V" only hurt us. We
Granted. But keeping it identical just because they did like that is
just as bad. Takes the best parts, the ideas that work. Keep anything
that does not make a difference the same (to satisfy the "no gratuitous
changes" camp), but be willing to change what we don't like for our sake.
> don't want people refusing to run FreeBSD because it is too different
> from the other unixes, (without significant advantage) do we?
Then keep it only BSD and stop trying to System-V-ize it.
> +> 8-10 unix flavors that I work with. So which one are you going to clone?
>We have two reasonable choices:
> 1. Whichever one we feel is technically superior.
> 2. The one with the biggest market presence (Solaris2).
Neither. Build our own implementation, the way FreeBSD wants it,
that conforms to the basic framework.
If I want to use Solaris, I'll use Solaris. I don't want FreeBSD
to just become a cheap Solaris clone.
> +> > skel
> +>
> +> I put all the stuff normally in /usr/share/skel in /etc/skel.
> The current /usr/share/skel is a fine location.
Except when you want to change default dot files. Then have
to redo it after each install.
> named
> Keep it where it is (/etc/namedb). All of the books on DNS and BIND
> expect it to be there. (I would class moving it into /etc/inet as
> a gratuitous difference.)
OK. It has enough files of its own to class it as a subsystem.
|> Let's not go overboard and try and stick everything in it's own
|> little nook and cranny.
|>
> Agreed. (Although I wouldn't necessarily make half a dozen a hard
> limit. After all named only has five.)
Granted.
-coranth
------------------------------------------+------------------------+
Coranth Gryphon <gryphon@healer.com> | "Faith Manages." |
| - Satai Delenn |
Phone: 603-598-3440 Fax: 603-598-3430 +------------------------+
USMail: 11 Carver St, Nashua, NH 03060
Disclaimer: All these words are yours, except Europa...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509211750.NAA00729>