Subject: rc.d/init.d vs. rc
To: None <tech-userlevel@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Scott Reynolds <scottr@Plexus.COM>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 03/31/1996 21:30:54
[Note:  moved to tech-userlevel.]

On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, John F. Woods wrote:

> What does `supported' mean?
> If it means "every time core adds a new daemon to the startup sequence, add
> it both to /usr/src/etc/etc.*/rc and to /usr/src/etc/init.d/" along with
> "have init use /etc/rc if it sees it, otherwise /etc/init.d", that's not
> necessarily much of a burden.

Hopefully I can be as brief as possible, because there's certainly been 
enough hot a... err, discussion about this already. ;-)

In a nutshell:

1) I fully understand the desire (the need, really, for some
circumstances) for an rc.d/init.d style startup.  I agree that it should
be used by default.  Perhaps the best way to implement it is to use it if 
it's available, otherwise fall back on /etc/rc.

2) I would hate this style of startup, and it wouldn't integrate well 
with the system we have at work.  Hardly at all, in fact.  I need, and I 
suspect some others need, BSD-style rc/rc.local.

3) I can't get excited about an automatic tool to generate /etc/rc and
/etc/rc.local; too many things to break (especially as it would
undoubtably require cleverness to some degree), and potentially producing
a very ugly /etc/rc.  I am very comfortable with shell scripts and I enjoy
how compact our rc/rc.local is compared to, say, the HP-UX 9.X /etc/rc,
which also references netlinkrc, diag.rc, auditrc,, rc.utils,
netbsdsrc (really!), netnfsrc, and netnfsrc2 (among others, perhaps).

4) Doing a `cvs log' on our rc and rc.local is very informative, and 
suggests that as ugly as it would be to maintain two separate startups in 
parallel, it could be done.  There have been 5 meaningful changes (i.e. 
not typos or comments) to /etc/rc since NetBSD 1.0 was released, and 3 
meaningful changes to /etc/rc.local in the same time.

I will volunteer to maintain this, even, to the best extent possible, 
since I have a vested interest in things continuing to work the way they 
are now.  Anybody else willing to commit to the same?  It shouldn't be a 
burden, really, but it would keep everybody happy.