From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Sep 25 23:02:57 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id XAA13304
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 23:02:57 -0700
Received: from phoenix.volant.org (root@phoenix.volant.org [205.179.79.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA13298
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 23:02:53 -0700
From: patl@asimov.volant.org
Received: from asimov.volant.org (asimov.volant.org [205.179.79.65]) by phoenix.volant.org (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id XAA20725; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 23:01:44 -0700
Received: by asimov.volant.org (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA29960; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 23:07:22 -0700
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 23:07:22 -0700
Message-Id: <9509260607.AA29960@asimov.volant.org>
To: jehamby@lightside.com, gary@palmer.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: ports startup scripts
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

|>  As someone who has ``grown up'' around BSD derrivatives, I still
|>  scratch my head when asked to work on a Solaris box.

Solaris2 actually has some pretty nice things, once you get past the
fact that they are different.  I found it was much easier to understand
and appreciate Solaris2 if I pretended that it was the first unix system
I had come across so that I could look at it for its own merits instead
of for the differences from SunOS4/BSD/...


|>  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!)

Of course we can.  The script names aren't just an ID number, they
are of the form [SK]##mumble, where '##' is the ID number, and 'mumble'
is the service name.  It doesn't matter if two services have the same
ID number, the name will keep them unique.  (And we document that the
execution order for scripts with the same number is 'deterministic but
not defined'.)

|>  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).

That's why you use sparse numbering, and define significant sequence
points within the runlevel.  (A sequence point is a number by which
all services within some abstract category have been started.)

|>  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?

Yep, exactly.  And you document the sequence points in a per-state
README file in the rc?.d directory.  If you have access to a late-version
Solaris2 box (say 2.4 or later), take a good look at how they did it.





-Pat