From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 1 21:51:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA15168 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:51:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (genesi.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.136.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA15156 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:51:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from lot.gsoft.com.au (doconnor@lot.gsoft.com.au [203.38.152.106]) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA09730; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:20:45 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <36B68DFA.C14D590E@softweyr.com> Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 16:20:45 +1030 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: Wes Peters Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, David Wolfskill Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 02-Feb-99 Wes Peters wrote: > The dependency stuff is the only reason for doing this; it's the shaft > the knobs attach to. It's been pointed out many times before that doing > it without the "dependency stuff" is of little value. Oh, well that comes as a suprise to me :) I really like the idea of having scripts to call to handle start/stop/reconf/status of servers. The dependancy stuff is nice but its going to take some thinking about, whereas the scripts are a nice (useful IMHO :) place to start. > Now that's a sparkling idea. I'm not sure we'll need the $PREFIX/etc/rc.d > directories anymore, though, they were mostly a hack caused by our severe > lack of an /etc/rc.d directory. I guess it won't add much to the complexity Yes, perhaps. The idea of having the user installed stuff all in /usr/local is appealing though. > to retain them, but it won't really work to do it partially. I could, for > instance, write a script for my Perforce server in a couple of minutes, but > since it depends on "network", it's just not really going to work without > the system stuff, too. Yes, but say you tweak a config file, you just run the script to reconf since you know the network is up. This would still be nice for newbies even without the dependancy stuff. (The idea being that the dependancy code just calls the scripts which are already in place) --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message