Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:18:37 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>, Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /etc/rc.d, and changes to /etc/rc? Message-ID: <v04011714b2780414ea5c@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <199811180255.UAA01561@spawn.nectar.com> References: <19981117235348.41074@nothing-going-on.org> <19981115235938.22908@nothing-going-on.org> <19981117210138.03327@nothing-going-on.org> <199811172241.QAA00519@spawn.nectar.com> <19981117235348.41074@nothing-going-on.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 8:55 PM -0600 11/17/98, Jacques Vidrine wrote:
> These are good points, so I hope you don't mind me copying them
> back to -hackers where my original message was posted.
I think we should decide to discuss the issue here, or on current,
but not on both lists. We're going to get too confused here,
particularly if the two discussions are *not* cross-posted, and
thus each mailing list is seeing a different debate.
>On 17 November 1998 at 23:53,
> Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> 1. When killing system daemons (i.e., inetd, sendmail, named, lpd, and
>> so on) no need to try and find the right PID, playing with ps, grep,
>> and friends. This is a win when explaining the process to someone
>> newer to Unix than most members of this list, particularly because
>> the process is the same each time. They don't (yet!) need or want to
>> understand what the script is doing, that can come later. It also
>> makes documentation simpler.
>
> Unless the user is from a System V world, this will be no simpler
> than using ``killall''.
It is simplier than "killall", because the same general method will
be used for all daemons/services. Sure, 'killall' is simple when that
is the correct thing to do, but for some things (such as, say, CAP),
a killall is *not* the best thing to do.
> I don't see anything broken with the current setup. I much prefer
> it to System V-like model that you are proposing.
Off the top of my head I would say that I like the idea, but not enough
to put a lot of effort into making it happen. If someone else is willing
to put in the effort, then I (as just one vote) have no major objections
to it. I do work with both aix and solaris, and thus I maybe more
comfortable with doing things this way.
> If you really believe in this model, I'd suggest making a
> ``sysvadmin port'' that does what you want.
That is less attractive to me. It means you still have to document
(and update) both startup methods, thus guaranteeing that it will be
more work (now and forevermore). This is the worst alternative, in
my opinion.
> I don't see a lot of users upgrading to FreeBSD 3.0.1 or what have
> you and being pleased that they now are lost because of a gratuitous
> change.
What changes are average (*) users going to be "lost" in?
They don't do the startup by hand, so in that sense it's just as
easy to have separate files as it is to have one common file.
The killall question? Well, if killall works before doing this,
then killall will still work after doing this. No one is going
to break their fingers if they keep using killall to stop some
service. They just now have a common way to stopother services,
if they don't happen to know what killall command to type for a
given service.
(*) = here, "average" is defined as being someone who does
not go thru and do a lot of their *own* customizations
to the rc scripts, and thus they don't much care how
the thing is organized just as long as it works.
I expect I can think up some reasons against making this change,
but the ones you've presented are not very convincing to me. It
wouldn't surprise me if this topic has been debated before, and
if there are some other more convincing reasons not to do it,
but for now I have no objections to the idea.
---
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.its.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or drosih@rpi.edu
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
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?v04011714b2780414ea5c>