Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 09 Sep 2000 00:44:30 +0930
From:      Matthew Thyer <thyerm@camtech.net.au>
To:        Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: /usr/local/etc/rc.d and /etc/rc.d
Message-ID:  <39B90256.4E4B3D60@camtech.net.au>
References:  <39B8E865.B77012B@camtech.net.au> <20000908153421.A58134@mithrandr.moria.org> <39B8F928.C9F4339@camtech.net.au> <20000908164715.A59499@mithrandr.moria.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
> 
> On Sat 2000-09-09 (00:05), Matthew Thyer wrote:
> > The point is that people are worried about scripts that aren't aware
> > of the "start" and "stop" argument trying to start apps again at
> > shutdown time.  With my scheme, the script wont be executed at shutdown
> > time if the K* script doesn't exist.
> 
> If it's there, it gets executed.  If it's there, it was put there.  If
> it was put there, it'll have support for "start" and "stop".
> 
> If an administrator puts a script in there that does the wrong thing,
> that's his fault.  He could use the fall-back rc.local method.
> 
> We needn't support stupid behaviour by complicating the matter.

I'm behind on cvs-all and freebsd-current so forgive me but I'm basing my
comments on rc.shutdown executing /usr/local/etc/rc.d/* with argument
"stop".   Which seems very dangerous given that people may not have
rebuilt their ports for a long time.

With my way the old scripts may not even be run until the admin reads
up on the new scheme.

> # before zope
> # before apache
> # after networking
> # after nfs
> 
> is much better than:
> 
> S10.networking.sh
> S20.nfs.sh
> S40.zope.sh
> S45.apache.sh
> 
> and then figuring to use S43.foo.sh.

We'll have to disagree on this point.  Given that we've had no order
control in the past and that ports are generally (yes its bad to generalise)
not dependent on each other, should the situation arise I think that any
admin worth his/her pay can work out how to change the order with the
numbers.

Remember that I'm trying to stay remotely compatible with other systems.
We dont have to re-invent the wheel.

I still think a dependency based system is way more complicated than what
is required.

> I'm not particularly attached to perl, but it has a convenience in some
> sections, like ports, that is unmatched by sed and awk.  Note the
> excessive use of "perl -i -pe 's/foo/bar/'" for in-place substitution.
> I've asked on at least two occasions for a simple, easy-to-use, thing to
> do it without doing a two-liner that copies to another file, and then
> replaces the old file with the new file.

My point is that its worth some ugly awk and sed to get away from the
base OS depending on perl.  I dont care how elegant perl is.

Thats about all I'll say on this thread.... got to sleep.

> Neil
> --
> Neil Blakey-Milner
> Sunesi Clinical Systems
> nbm@mithrandr.moria.org


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39B90256.4E4B3D60>