Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 10:32:52 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: witr@rwwa.com (Robert Withrow), dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... Message-ID: <199902061732.KAA16690@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199902060127.SAA23350@usr02.primenet.com> References: <199902051331.IAA23625@spooky.rwwa.com> <199902060127.SAA23350@usr02.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > :- Yep. I'm not against run states, just against run levels. > > > > I'm against both! See my earlier remarks about configuration mamagement. > > How do you propose to solve the Solaris binary compatability > problem for commercial Solaris applications that install > components into the rc.d directories in order to get them run > at the correct time and in the correct order for dependent > services requirements? You know, I hear this alot. But as a Solaris administrator, I've yet to hear or install *ANY* 3rd party software that installs files in /etc/init.d that doesn't require hand-tweaking. And, if they require hand-tweaking, with a bit of work, it can be converted to FreeBSD's rc.d stuff (assuming the rc.shutdown stuff actually works now.) Very few if *any* Solaris binaries actually rely on run-levels. At least that's been my experience. Nate 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?199902061732.KAA16690>