Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 16:53:46 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: dyson@iquest.net Cc: adrian@ubergeeks.com, rssh@grad.kiev.ua, grog@lemis.com, wes@softweyr.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: System V init (was: Linux to be deployed in Mexican schools; Where was FreeBSD?) Message-ID: <19981130165346.N9226@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199811301510.KAA02669@y.dyson.net>; from John S. Dyson on Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 10:10:32AM -0500 References: <19981130145803.I9226@follo.net> <199811301510.KAA02669@y.dyson.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 10:10:32AM -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: > With a proper structure, there is flexibility. The current rc > setup isn't on the surface very flexible and is overly monolithic. > Additionally, the more that "special tweaks" need to be done for a > software port, the more there is cost for support of an OS. IMO, it > is best to look like a predominant market player. Purely technical > discussions end up being continually tweaked and tuned. I am suggesting > a normalization to a market "standard." On the technical merits, this > discussion can last forever, because there are lots and lots of > technical solutions. > > There is the /usr/local/etc/rc.d thing, but that is a superficial > attempt to look similar to the "standard", but doesn't really perform > the functions of it. I suspect that a "really nice" rc scheme could > be layered on top of the "standard" scheme, just like a "really nice" > rc scheme could be layered on top of the BSD scheme. The question is, > just why not be compatible? I'm in favour of compatible. I'm not sure if this require us to bring in the bad sides of the SysV system. I suspect it would be possible to create a 'compatibility layer' that allow standard installation of SysV-ported software, but still has a technically better scheme for those that want to interface fully with FreeBSD. It would delegate 'simple ports' to be a sort of second class citizens, not giving them full flexibility, but still giving them about the flexibility they have under SysV. However, I don't really know the details of how the different SysV implementations of the init scheme is. If somebody has a reference to the spec or to a description of each of the significant implementations, this would make it possible to see what could be implemented. Eivind, who really believe this discussion belong in freebsd-arch (which is now open and moderated). To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19981130165346.N9226>