Subject: Re: HEADS UP: RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR changed to share/examples/rc.d
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 01/03/2005 08:43:31
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Robert Elz wrote:
> | "make packages with
> | daemons easier to enable for automatic startup without surprising the admin
> | by starting up unexpectedly" is probably closer.
> still makes it a two step process.
> And if we were to have this two step process, then it doesn't really
> make any difference whether copying the rc.d file is in step 1 or step 2,
> does it?
Actually, it does, to wit:
> | Add: "the packaging system is who manages files and keeps track of them".
> Once again, this is a processing step, not an objective.
No, it's definitely an objective. I don't see why you're trying to go an
N-th level of psychological abstraction here; it's not that difficult to
I'll restate it one more time. "The admin should never have to *copy* files
into place; the packaging system should ALWAYS install and manage them, even
if the pathname is configurable by some variable or other. This is
unrelated to whether the files, once installed, must be edited for proper
Does this make it clear to you yet?
> So, this ends up begging the question - you want the package system to
> manage the installed rc.d script, if it installs it.
Strike "if it installs it" and you've nailed it on the head. There's *zero*
gain if they are not installed to some path by default, and I submit that
such a situation actually adds to the administrative overhead of package
Geesh, all we're talking about is making rc.d scripts consistent with all
other configuration files. What's so hard to understand about that?
-- Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>