Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:36:09 +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: <19981130203609.S9226@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199811301829.NAA03045@y.dyson.net>; from John S. Dyson on Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 01:29:21PM -0500 References: <19981130165346.N9226@follo.net> <199811301829.NAA03045@y.dyson.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 01:29:21PM -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: > > I'm in favour of compatible. I'm not sure if this require us to bring > > in the bad sides of the SysV system. > > IMO, SYSV init isn't one of the "bad" things about SYSV. If anything, it > is just not finished (shipped before it was fully thought out.) I suspect > that a reasonable compromise is to implement a SYSV style init correctly, > providing SYSV compatibility, with the desired flexibility and functionality > that we would all prefer. I was thinking of implementing something like the scheme at http://www.freebsd.org/~eivind/newrc.tar.gz (which is just me speaking in code instead of attempting to convey everything in words), and then allowing SysV installers to install as if it was SysV by having entries that run the scripts from rc?.d. > I truly believe that the current BSD scheme is more of a "punt" as opposed to > a superior solution. Making a choice to stay with the limited BSD init scheme > because the SYSV scheme has it's own problems doesn't solve the problems of > either scheme. The SYSV scheme probably mechanically solves the problems better, > but can be a mess. The BSD scheme is a problem because of it's monolithic and > almost non-layered structure. These technical arguments really beg the issue > of compatibility though. We agree on all of this, at least :-) > Ignoring technical arguments AGAIN, SYSV (and Linux) compatilbility are > desirable for packaging and porting reasons. There are lots of things that > one might have to do for compatibility reasons (limited 32bit disk file addressing > in the Linux emulation), however, if the compatibile choice isn't made, then > problems ensue. It would be very bad to say something like "the linux 32bit > file offsets are bogus, so we will unilaterally make the offsets 64bit and > break compatibility -- but we are RIGHT :-)". What I hope to do is provide 'limited compatbility' - we allow SysV style to make porting easier, but if you really want to run 'FreeBSD native', you'll provide scripts that have been adapted for FreeBSD. If you want to override a basic FreeBSD system service (e.g, replace sendmail), you'll need to have a FreeBSD-style script. Does this in your opinion sound like a reasonable tradeoff? Eivind. 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?19981130203609.S9226>