Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 17:11:12 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Harlan Stenn <Harlan.Stenn@landmark.com> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.mt.net>, phk@freebsd.org, cvs-etc@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.i386 rc.i386 Message-ID: <199503310111.RAA04809@precipice.shockwave.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 30 Mar 1995 19:40:36 EST." <30687.796610436@ren.landmark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Why do they need to be stopped in reverse order? They are independant
modules.
From: Harlan Stenn <Harlan.Stenn@landmark.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/etc.i386 rc.i386
[I removed -committers from the header]
> > How about:
> >
> > for file in rc.local.d/*.rc ; do
> > sh $file start
> > done
> >
> > nice, clean, simple. If someone ever wants a programatic way to stop
> > these things,
> >
> > for file in rc.local.d/*.rc ; do
> > sh $file stop
> > done
> >
> > Please don't consider an interface where I need both a start and a stop
> > shell script (bletch bletch bletch).
>
> I like this. It's simple and to the point. The SysV stuff is neither
> of them.
Yes, it's simple and to the point.
The problem is that it usually doesn't work "correctly".
In the usual case, things need to stopped in the REVERSE order in which
they were shut down. I'm not aware of any situations where it is a bad
idea to stop things in the reverse order in which they were started.
I never wrote:
rfile=
for file in rc.local.d/*.rc ; do
rfile="$file $rfile"
done
for file in $rfile ; do
sh $file stop
done
I, too, dislike the mess. The SysV rc?.d/ scheme is a tolerable
solution, but it's not really elegant.
Then again, have you seen the ODM stuff AIX uses to handle things like
/etc/inittab, I/O devices, installed packages, ...?
H
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199503310111.RAA04809>