Subject: Re: Posible virc(8) implementation
To: Scott Aaron Bamford <>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
List: current-users
Date: 05/04/2000 11:33:30
In message <>,
Scott Aaron  Bamford writes:
>On Thu, 4 May 2000, Jonathan Stone wrote:

>someone made a post before about keeping a monolithic rc and rc.conf
>up to date in a seperate tree, i dont know if any development has continued
>on this; however the current virc -s would put all the `current values' from
>the rc.conf.d that you are not using, into one conf that could be hand tuned
>if needed.  It would be no use at all though if there wasnt a monolithic rc
>kept up to date too...

My tastes are ... unusual.

What I have been doing since rc.conf was created is to keep all
host-identifying info (basically /etc/{ifconfig.*,myname,mygate} in
the "old" files, and _everything_ else in /etc/rc.conf.

I've found this a very valuable way to "clone" specific machines, or
populate a farm of "identical" machines.  I seem to do that a lot,
both in an academica lab environment and in a startup.
I really, really, dont want to lose the abillity to centralize
information that way. virc is *not* a substitute for that; the people
who've claimed that it is are just asking to be flamed.

I'm very happy with /etc/init.d. But I find rc.conf.d a pain -- not
surprisingly, for the exact converse of the reasons our Aussie users
like it: there's one of me managing dozens of machines.  Having
everything (except the machine's address) in one place is a real boon.