Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 06:09:42 +0100 From: Gary Palmer <gary@palmer.demon.co.uk> To: Jake Hamby <jehamby@lightside.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <2649.812092182@palmer.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 25 Sep 1995 21:40:25 PDT." <Pine.BSF.3.91.950925212311.608A-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.3.91.950925212311.608A-100000@localhost>, Jake Hamby write s: >This is the first time I've responded to this LONG thread, and it'll >probably be the last, so I'll say what I have to say, and keep quiet for >the rest of the bickering. Same for me. I've skipped over a lot of this thread, for several reasons (mainly that this is a religous issue and that you won't even find more than a handful of people agreeing on the good points of the SVR4 model, let alone what FreeBSD should do). >When I first saw the SVR4 model on a Solaris box, it was SO confusing; I >thought it was needlessly complex and difficult to comprehend. But when I >first saw the BSD startup scripts I thought they were very disorganized >and difficult to customize (and as many people have pointed out, almost >impossible for a script to properly customize without goofing something >up). As someone who has ``grown up'' around BSD derrivatives, I still scratch my head when asked to work on a Solaris box. I still maintain that neither solution is practical for what we need. The whole point of this system being implimented on FreeBSD is to allow ports and packages easy hooks into the system startup scripts. There are several problems to be addressed (hopefully in a calm and practical fashion. Who am I trying to kid? :-) ) The key to this system working is that you just plop a file in a certain directory, which will be run when the system is next booted (or shutdown - WHATEVER). This leads to several problems that I can see: 1) Who issues these script ID numbers? We cannot let people go claiming their own at random, as they *WILL* clash (even if we let them loose on a number domain with 6 significant digits!) 2) Who is responsible for ensuring that they are in the correct order? (e.g. something which loads a LKM is run *AFTER* the script to mount /usr is run). This could potentially be nasty, as the dependancy tree WILL vary over time (and even from machine to machine). 3) How will we cope with local alterations (e.g. someone running locally developed s/w which is only for local use)? Do we leave large gaps in the numbering to allow for local hacks? Am I missing something basic here? >I appreciate your enthusiasm for pushing your idea, and I agree that we >should try out both implementations, but NOT in an official FreeBSD >release. Supporting two different kinds of startup scripts is a >nightmarish proposal. In fact, I don't think we should even push for >these scripts in -current until the majority has agreed on a single >paradigm, whatever it is. And, whatever we choose, it should be a good >enough implementation that the minority will not be totally turned off >from FreeBSD! :-) So lets get hacking, and may the best paradigm win! You've just consigned your proposal to the junk heap. Getting a majority of people on -hackers to agree on anything is a major battle on ANY subject, and on this one (where issues are religous and discussions, err, ``heated'') I'd guess that it's near impossible. As for what is the ``best paradigm'', who knows. I don't think I've caught wind of it during these discussions yet. Gary
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2649.812092182>