Subject: Re: rc.d (Was Re: run levels (was Re: The new rc.d stuff...))
To: Perry E. Metzger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Brown <email@example.com>
Date: 04/24/2000 10:33:05
>> 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....
okay, that makes sense. is this documented anywhere? even solaris
has a README file in /etc/rc*.d/. all we have is rc(8), but that's
(ahem) out of date.
ps - do you mind if i ask which part of my silly idea you object to
more? is it the part where init uses the kernel as a bulletin board
so that anyone can find out what "state" the system is in? or is it
the part where shutdown just tells init to change "state" and init
does the actually shutting down?
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
firstname.lastname@example.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
email@example.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
firstname.lastname@example.org * "information is power -- share the wealth."