Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 21:36:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@cold.org> To: The Classiest Man Alive <ksmm@cybercom.net> Cc: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/netstart bogons.. Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.970427213013.12136A-100000@cold.org> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970428020340.007096ac@cybercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, The Classiest Man Alive wrote: > At 03:23 PM 4/27/97 -0600, Brandon Gillespie wrote: > >> > I think it is more a case of functionality, rather than personal > >> > preference. With the rc.d/init.d approach you have more modularity, > >> > and the ability to start/stop random packages in a consistent way. > >> > There is also a single standard place that a vendor can throw a > >> > startup script in--this is a good thing. > >> > >I definitely agree, I abhore the rc?.d stuff--I can never remember what is > >what (especially since it has some variance depending upon the O/S). What > > What is it that ties us to those arcane eight-dot-three names anyway? Why > can't we just have a master rc script that launches others, like network.d > or filesystems.d? Sure would beat hunting through rc* files to change the > startup options on your daemons. Umm, this is half the conversation of this thread :) Basically, doing each subsystem as a startup file allows for MUCH greater modularity. Think: 3rd party software. If I create a software package, and with the install for it I want it to auto startup/shutdown, do I have to do funky perl/awk magic and HOPE that my changes to /etc/rc stick. Completely ignoring the fact that /etc/rc is the absolute incorrect place to do it, where is? This, coupled with the fact that FreeBSD DOES have multiple 'levels' or 'states', and the fact that like it or not: the rest of the world is doing it. We can sit around like an old geizer whineing about how 'in the good ole days, things were better', or we can keep from becoming a part of the good ole days. I for one am not overly fond of the existing rc?.d systems currently in use by other operating systems--but the core idea is sound, and I think it can be worked with where a decent system can be created that also 'feels' like the more ancient systems. As for the direct response to your question: eight-dot-three? WTF? Like dos filenames? My comments were about how in the rc?.d systems, each startup file is labeled with either 'S' or 'K' followed by two numbers, and then the rest of the filename (of whatever length or whatnot). The reason for this is 'K' files are executed at a shutdown of that state, and 'S' files are executed at a startup of that state, and all of the files for each stage are sorted alphanumerically, so 'S20blah' is executed before 'S50foof'. -Brandon Gillespie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.95.970427213013.12136A-100000>