Subject: Re: make for rc.d? (was Re: rc.d)
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 04/25/2000 23:13:05
[ On Tuesday, April 25, 2000 at 16:08:44 (-0700), Greywolf wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: make for rc.d? (was Re: rc.d)
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> # why do we need rcorder? why not just use make? when we get
> # multiprocessor working, we could do parallel makes, even.
> Because make is in /usr/bin, and the majority of us think that make
> belongs there and that /usr shouldn't be mounted in single-user mode.
That's not a reason -- that's an excuse, and a bloody poor one at that.
> # it seems like figuring out dependencies is _exactly_ what make is for...
> 'cept it's overkill in this case.
That's not the reason either -- 'make' doesn't manage dependencies in
the way that's necessary for this job. Even if you create a memory
filesystem that's sure to be cleaned out at every boot without requiring
any intervention at all and then create fake dependency targets in there
for 'make' to use to control the various steps of startup you've only
solved half the problem (what about shutdown?). 'rcorder' is almost the
right solution to the problem (it needs some way to do partial start and
stop ordering). What it does could probably be done by simple shell
tools, but not as efficiently of course.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>