Subject: Re: The new rc.d stuff...
To: Brett Lymn <blymn@baea.com.au>
From: Greywolf <greywolf@starwolf.com>
List: current-users
Date: 04/07/2000 23:51:20
On Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Brett Lymn wrote:
# According to Greywolf:
# >
# >It's nicer to have the CONFIG (hello! CONFIG! Not script) information
# >all in one place.
# >
#
# Yeah, ok mea culpa - the subject line got me going and I was on a
# roll ;-)
The split rc battle is already lost (or won, depending on which side
you're on - I call it a draw).
The rc.conf battle is worth fighting for me. Did my suggestions toward
it make sense? i.e.
pick whether rc.conf wins or the individual confs win, printing a
warning if they disagree...
pick whether an individual conf may override a MISSING rc.conf entry
or not, printing a warning if something is in rc.d but not
rc.conf...
warnings could be turned on or off...
But I'm repeating myself.
That just seems like a win to me. I'd want rc.conf to be the definitive
authority for stuff that exists but would like to be able to run a third-
party thing just by dropping it in, even if it bitched, i.e.
Starting local daemons: sshd* xdm@
*WARNING: sshd.conf flags disagree with sshd_flags in rc.conf
@WARNING: xdm is present in rc.d but no xdm variable exists in rc.conf
But I'm repeating myself.
--*greywolf;
--
BSD: The World's Most Portable Operating System