Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:21:20 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: gryphon@healer.com (Coranth Gryphon) Cc: chuckr@eng.umd.edu, kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, patl@asimov.volant.org, asami@cs.berkeley.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, julian@ref.tfs.com, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509211821.LAA09109@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199509211153.HAA22871@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 21, 95 07:53:54 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Personally, I really liked the BSD way of starting up, rather than the > SysV method, but since it looks like people are trying to merge the > two families, so be it... The BSD method leaves no room for leaving system startup files intact from a distribution in the face of daemonds that need to be started at system startup time rather than by inetd. Required changes include such things as: 1) Loading of additional file system LKM's. 2) Loading of binary emulation LKM's (Linux/SCO/etc.). 3) Starting a program as a mail transfer agent. 4) NOT starting sendmail as a mail transfer agent. 5) Starting SNMP agent(s). 6) Starting Radius (the authentication daemon for Livingston Portmasters). 7) Starting user space PPP. 8) Starting database service engines (Postgres/Sybase/etc.). 9) Starting Network service engines (Samba/Puzzle Systems NetWare Server/AppleTalk). 10) NOT starting Network service engines (NFS) etc. Note that 1 & 2 are a result of not having demand-loading and autoprobe capabailities, and speak more to deficiencies in the load mechanism used by LKMs than anything else. The best enhancement one could make is integrating sorted ordering of two directories, one in /etc and one on /var, to account for readonly NFS mounting of /. This would allow order specification without compromising the ability to have two directories (or the ability to have two directories without compromising the ability to specify order). Other than that, there's very little that one can do to improve upon the idea. > Yuk. One sub-directory of /etc being used just to have symlinks to > another sub-directory of /etc? Yeah, I dislike this. It smacks of not being sure at which run level you want to run certain scripts. It *does*, however, support the idea of optioning a script "off" without deleting it. > And while we're on the subject of completely reworking /etc, how > about a "inet" directory which holds (as seperate files) all the > network specific config files, such as host name, ip-addresses, > resolv.conf, ... > > Why? So if you are doing cookie-cutter installs on lots of systems, > you go through that one directory to change everything there, and > leave everything else in /etc alone. A good idea. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509211821.LAA09109>