-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


>>>>> "Lucio" == Lucio de Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za> writes:
    Lucio> In this context, would it not be advisable to fragment rc.*
    Lucio> and other initial configuration procedures into segments
    Lucio> appropriate to each filesystem mounted, so that it is
    Lucio> easier to make sure that prerequisites are met before they
    Lucio> execute?

  Sure. I would rather we included /etc/rc.d type functionality if we
really need this.

    Lucio> It is tempting to suggest including such scripts in an
    Lucio> FSTAB that in turn distinguishes between init-time mounts
    Lucio> and other times.  I would suggest reversing the "noauto"
    Lucio> option and make it something like:

    Lucio> 	init:<script> or auto:<script>

  That's a thought.
  According to something I read on linux-config, FreeBSD may be
considering SysV inittab style scripts. I just like /etc/rc.d and see
no reason to go all the way to run levels. In particular, I dislike
the fact that it is too easy to hang while running "shutdown" scripts.

    Lucio> Also, remounting the filesystem at a later stage could
    Lucio> safely ignore the "init" option.

  I think that we need to simply face the fact that different people
have different requirements and we should make it as easy for people
to upgrade after customizing things as possible.

]              Have encryption. Will travel.                    |1 Fish/2 Fish[
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |Red F./Blow F[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |strong crypto[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQBVAwUBNq6szR4XQavxnHg9AQFIgAH/QfpCn9ydi5lVrJGxbqpXpumHBgW/OxK4
XHxFUTV+ig8S7MZ9MdYzSu9gGWP6xCCxGFcuh9ZyCaGCYSS09c1eLg==
=hzfk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----