#define AUTHOR "perry@piermont.com ("Perry E. Metzger")"

/*
 * Some (possibly controversial) comments:
 * 
 * 1) I think that everyone agrees that it would be better if packages
 *    could just drop an initialization file into the "right place" and
 *    have the "right thing" happen -- i.e. that the notion of an rc.d
 *    isn't so bad, but that it doesn't by itself solve some problems.
 * 2) I think that people generally agree that run levels aren't
 *    something we want in NetBSD.
 * 3) I think that people generally agree that people want flexibility,
 *    so it is better if the rc.d style thing gets invoked by rc via a
 *    shell mechanism and is not built in to init -- ditto that people
 *    aren't really in to shutdown scripts.
 * 4) I think that people generally agree that we need a better mechanism
 *    to solve the ordering problem for scripts -- you really want to be
 *    able to say "start this thing after dns and nfs are up", etc.
 * 
 * 4) Is the only problem that I think is hard, and I believe that by
 * having an explicit dependency list in each script file, we can
 * probably have some code produce an ordering based on dependencies
 * rather than trying to do this by kludges like putting numbers in front
 * of the scripts.
 * 
 * Comments?

Well, from my point of view (FWIW) that's pretty spot on.

Don't forget (tangentially):

5)  A sticking point seems to be that "it would be nice to be able
    to delete portions of the software as well as adding other
    'packages'".  But that's a piece of cake, really.

 * 
 * Perry
 * 
 */

#undef AUTHOR	/* "perry@piermont.com ("Perry E. Metzger")" */




				--*greywolf;
--
912559 12648430 5UCK5 R0CK5.