Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:20:51 -0500 (EST) From: Bill/Carolyn Pechter <pechter@shell.monmouth.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SysV Init Message-ID: <199811191220.HAA09760@shell.monmouth.com> In-Reply-To: <199811181753.JAA09212@hub.freebsd.org> from "freebsd-hackers-digest" at Nov 18, 98 09:53:21 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Subject: Re: /etc/rc.d, and changes to /etc/rc? > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Chuck Robey wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Snob Art Genre wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Gary Kline wrote: > > > > > I'm surprised to hear this. I'd say go with it. The > > > differences between BSD and the SYSV rc files|directories > > > is one of the most significant differences between the two > > > models. > > > > > > Your ideas would be a win-win. > > > > I agree strongly. Sometimes sending something a signal is not all that > > needs to be done to kill it cleanly. A mechanism for glue logic can be > > valuable. I have just recently started adminning Solaris, after a > > couple of years only using various BSDs, and the start and stop scripts > > are one of my favorite features. I said the same thing. I also started working on doing this, however I was still working under 2.x -- so I've just switched to working under 3.0. I will try to get back into this, especially now that I've got a Sun here with Solaris 7 and a copy of Solaris for the x86 here. Boy did I get flames when I proposed this. This is one area where SysV is superior. > > 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. > I was looking to do this as a port of the SysV init, getty and hopefully one day package tools. If we got SVR4 or Solaris X86 emulation we'd be set. My plan was two sysctl variables for current and past run state. This would avoid the need for a utmp change. kern.current_runlevel kern.prev_runlevel The who command would also be need modified to support who -R and read the kern.current_runlevel variable. I was thinking about porting getty_ps over along with gettydefs... Anyone spot anything else we'd need to do for compatibility? Bill +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bill and/or Carolyn Pechter | pechter@shell.monmouth.com | | Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in | | a James Bond movie -- Dennis Miller | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 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?199811191220.HAA09760>