Subject: rc.d (Was Re: run levels (was Re: The new rc.d stuff...))
To: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
Date: 04/24/2000 10:26:14
Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> rc.d seems fine to me, except that i now can't decide where to shove
> stuff like a local static route or a silly local daemon. so i'm still
> using rc.local, but now it "feels wrong".
That's fairly easy. The static route should go into a script that
depends on the network script having been run (since you need the
network interfaces up). The local daemon should go into a script that
depends on whatever it needs up in order to run....