Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      18 Nov 1998 22:38:48 -0600
From:      Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org>
To:        Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net>
Cc:        ben@rosengart.com, Gary Kline <kline@thought.org>, Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: /etc/rc.d, and changes to /etc/rc?
Message-ID:  <86n25oguuf.fsf@detlev.UUCP>
In-Reply-To: Chuck Robey's message of "Wed, 18 Nov 1998 12:49:59 -0500 (EST)"
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.05.9811181245590.27295-100000@picnic.mat.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It seems to me that what we ought to be asking for are the hooks, so
> those of us that *do* like run-levels *can* have them.  I don't
> think we should force everyone to have such a thing, but wouldn't it
> be possible to have the run levels *without* requiring those that
> think they are evil to have to implement a changed startup?
> I'm asking for a system where the legacy rc is there for those who
> want it (and would probably be installed by default) but a system of
> run-levels and rc.d type stuff would be feasible.  Such a thing
> could then even be a port.  I think such an approach would
> short-circuit most of the complaints, and let the idea move forward
> with coding.

It appears that coders are the main people who don't like SysV's init.
Your suggestion would mean that the coders and ports maintainers would
have to include support for two systems, and most of them only use one
themselves.

-- 
Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org
   Fourth law of programming:
   Anything that can go wrong wi
sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped

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?86n25oguuf.fsf>