Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:20:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Bill/Carolyn Pechter <pechter@shell.monmouth.com> To: patl@asimov.volant.org Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509212320.TAA13063@shell.monmouth.com> In-Reply-To: <9509211439.AA22140@asimov.volant.org> from "patl@asimov.volant.org" at Sep 21, 95 07:39:52 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> |> > I suspect that most of the problem with the SVr4/Solaris/HP-UX startup > |> > script system is poor documentation. And a lot of the people complaining > |> > are really complaining about the change, not the actual result. Any > |> > change we make will suffer from that, no matter how good it is. > |> > |> It's not documentation. See the Nemeth Sysadmin book Edition 2 (the red > |> cover)... The yellow one documented the run levels with SVR2 (I think). > > Any documentation that doesn't come with the system is obscure. Unix > users and sysadmins tend to expect to find everything they need on-line. That's a generic Unix problem. Unix usually doesn't have "Documentation" it has reference matter. Now Vax/VMS had DOCUMENTATION. I've tried to configure HP-UX by the "Documentation"... ugh. /etc/netnfsrc /etc/bsdsrc /etc/bull&*^%$#rc... Init and inittab were in the docs with OS/x and DC/OSx... However the man pages don't give real sample scripts. They should be in some skel directory... I always used the TCPIP or NFS starter script as a model. > > |> Actually, it appears to be a cultural problem. Since there's no > |> standard "Unix" -- there's really two -- BSD and SYSTEM V > |> you get the one true Unix religious bigotry. > > Only two? Isn't that something like saying "There are two kinds of > Christianity - Roman Catholic and Protestant" ? :-) :-) > [ That was intended as a wry observation, not an invitation to rathole > on varieties of unix... ] And a damned good one. 8-) > > SVr4 was supposed to merge the two camps again by incorporating the > advantages of both systems. It fell down a bit in the areas where > both provided equivalent functionality in incompatible ways. And > they -really- screwed up a few things (like serial port and printer > administration.) > > > |> I've worked with both. I've been the sysadmin on SunOS, HP-UX, Solaris 2.4, > |> DC/OSx (SysVR4), OS/X (which had available both the AT&T and BSD init > |> and the Sys Admin would install EITHER ONE based on preferences at the > |> site). > |> > |> (Actually the capability to support both ways wouldn't be bad here... > |> how about keeping the old BSD init method as an option) > > If that can be done easily and cleanly, I'd go for it. > > |> At Pyramid's NJ training facility we noticed the following... > |> The Sys V method was pushed heavily in my classes as the method with the > |> most customization... However my office ran with the BSD init -- since the > |> rest of the office learned UNIX on the west coast -- while the bunch > |> of folks who came out of the telcom business here (ex-AT&T and Bellcore > |> folks) ran with the SysV setup. > > Which tends to support my point about inertia being the prime factor. > > |> > You make it sound like the folks working on FreeBSD would make changes > |> > just to be different from SYSV. I sincerely hope that is not the case. > |> > We should strive to produce the best unix-derived system that we can; > |> > but vigorously fight the Not Invented Here syndrome. If somebody else > |> > has a better solution than the one we are using, we should feel perfectly > |> > free to adopt it. Or, if we can, improve it further. > |> > |> Agreed... it looks like the argument comes down to NIH and that SysV's > |> startup complicates things more than the BSD /etc/rc /etc/rc.local does. > > I still think that complication is more apparent than real. In some ways, > it has actually made things easier by making some of the decisions more > obvious. (E.g., which run-level to put a link in corresponds to which > major section of rc or rc.local to insert your changes into.) > > |> However, a new user editing rc or rc.local and screwing up can cause a lot > |> of problems. I had to fix another admin's SunOS 4.1.3 machine when he > |> screwed it up so bad that the shared libraries weren't mounted. > > Exactly. And the SVr4 method makes life -MUCH- easier for anyone building > an installation package for add-on software. Scripts to safely modify > rc or rc.local have to make some scary assumptions... > > |> I think we should go the SVR4 route and I'm willing to document it... > > I'll support you all the way. (I'll offer to help, but I'm not sure I'm not much of a coder -- but I'm interested in Sysadmin issues. FreeBSD's going to get better and better the more discussion that goes into it. *I'll avoid the idea of conditional symbolic links and two sets of binaries so you could have both BSD and SYS_V compatible utilities. I'll avoid /usr/5bin or /usr/ucb -- both of which drove me nuts. *(i would've preferred the symlinks) * Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Pechter/Carolyn Pechter | The postmaster always pings twice. Lakewood MicroSystems | 17 Meredith Drive, 908-389-3592 | Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 pechter@shell.monmouth.com |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509212320.TAA13063>