Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 23:05:39 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: "Daniel O'Connor" <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... Message-ID: <36B695B3.E00558DC@softweyr.com> References: <XFMail.990202162045.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 02-Feb-99 Wes Peters wrote:
> > The dependency stuff is the only reason for doing this; it's the shaft
> > the knobs attach to. It's been pointed out many times before that doing
> > it without the "dependency stuff" is of little value.
>
> Oh, well that comes as a suprise to me :)
> I really like the idea of having scripts to call to handle start/stop/reconf/status of
> servers. The dependancy stuff is nice but its going to take some thinking about, whereas
> the scripts are a nice (useful IMHO :) place to start.
Well, then get started. Hacking up rc.* into rc.inet, rc.nfs,
etc. should be pretty straightforward work. It's just not all
that hard. ;^)
> > Now that's a sparkling idea. I'm not sure we'll need the $PREFIX/etc/rc.d
> > directories anymore, though, they were mostly a hack caused by our severe
> > lack of an /etc/rc.d directory. I guess it won't add much to the complexity
> Yes, perhaps. The idea of having the user installed stuff all in /usr/local is appealing
> though.
And any X-related stuff in /usr/XFree86/etc. As I said, it really wouldn't
add much to the complexity either.
> > to retain them, but it won't really work to do it partially. I could, for
> > instance, write a script for my Perforce server in a couple of minutes, but
> > since it depends on "network", it's just not really going to work without
> > the system stuff, too.
> Yes, but say you tweak a config file, you just run the script to reconf since you know
> the network is up. This would still be nice for newbies even without the dependancy stuff.
> (The idea being that the dependancy code just calls the scripts which are already in
> place)
That was what drove my idea to use a makefile; you could write the
start/stop scripts and express the dependencies in the makefile; the
start/stop scripts would be useful on their own. The disadvantage is
that you now have to edit the Makefile to add or remove something;
which we were trying to avoid.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com
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?36B695B3.E00558DC>