Subject: Re: The new rc.d stuff...
To: Brett Lymn <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/06/2000 20:25:38
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Brett Lymn wrote:
# According to John Nemeth:
# > Yep, and this is one of my biggest peeve with SysV style machines.
# >Spreading configuration info all over the place makes them much harder
# >to maintain, and therefore makes them less robust.
# If they are then they are Not Doing It Right (tm). All the
# conf files should reside in /etc/init.d and the rcn.d contents should
# be hard links to the /etc/init.d files - hard links are traditional
# because SYSV did not have symbolic links until R4. So, /etc/init.d
# should hold your conf files, what is the beef? ;-)
The beef is that the rc.>>CONF<< information should not be split.
I'm having less of an argument that rc should (not) be split -- I'm
so used to slowaris that I can deal with that. Doesn't mean I *like* it.
It's nicer to have the CONFIG (hello! CONFIG! Not script) information
all in one place.
I don't even mind the concept of runlevels as long as we can implement
them symbolically (using a SOCKET or something instead of the brain-dead
SIGNAL implementation that Missed 'em Five uses).
If anything, there should be a selectable option which dictates whether
the rc.conf should take precedence over the individual configs or the
other way around.
But it _should_ _be_ blasted SELECTABLE, dash it all!
BSD: free yourself from Stallmanist thought!