From owner-freebsd-current Wed Dec 11 17:41:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A0737B401 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:41:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from clover.kientzle.com (user-112uh9a.biz.mindspring.com [66.47.69.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8897043EA9 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:41:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@acm.org) Received: from acm.org (c43 [66.47.69.43]) by clover.kientzle.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBC1fSE63859 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:41:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@acm.org) Message-ID: <3DF7E948.9060508@acm.org> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:41:28 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle Reply-To: kientzle@acm.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011206 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: RC NG, ntp and routed References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The point of the barrier scripts is to provide simple dependencies to other scripts. In particular, NETWORKING should represent a fully-functional network, including any routing or multicast routing that is normally used on this network. It does not, in itself, depend on any filesystems. (It runs no programs itself, so why would it?) There are not going to be many scripts that require partial network functionality; I see little advantage to defining new barriers for a partially-working network. Whether NETWORKING or FILESYSTEMS comes first is irrelevant, since neither one requires the other. If a particular network script requires a local filesystem, it should say so: REQUIRE: filesystem_local or, if you prefer, REQUIRE: mountcritlocal Likewise, a filesystem script that requires full or partial networking should say so. Again, FILESYSTEMS itself does not require any networking. It would be nice if there were some way for the filesystem mounting scripts to PROVIDE those filesystems that they actually mount. Then other scripts could, for example, REQUIRE: /bin, /usr/local to ensure that the tools they need are, in fact, present. Unfortunately, I don't see any way to do this with the current rcNG system. There are a couple of approaches that might provide such functionality, but all the ones that come to mind require dumping rcorder and integrating order calculations into rc.subr. (In particular, you can't always know what features a script has provided until it has run to completion.) Gordon Tetlow asks: > Does anyone have a problem with dyking out the NetBSD > specific portions after 5.0? I certainly don't. Mike Makonnen suggested: >>>... let's move the routing daemons from /usr/sbin to /sbin. To which Gordon Tetlow responded: >>Lest we forget, / is statically linked. that 42k binary >> turns into a 450k binary in /sbin. There's work in progress to convert / to dynamic linking. _If_ that work is accepted by the group, then that would address Gordon's concern. Of course, a dynamic / does not give carte blanche to move the entire world into /sbin, either. I also agree with the poster who pointed out that folks who have a remote /usr and rely on dynamic routing can easily work around this issue on a case-by-case basis. The whole point of having fine-grained rc.d scripts is to simplify customizations. Tim Kientzle To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message