Subject: Re: Changing root's shell to /bin/sh
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Dustin Sallings <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/17/1999 10:10:42
On Wed, 17 Mar 1999, Jonathan Stone wrote:
# If you want to discuss this, do go ahead, but dont dive into an
# implementation without working through the issues that're likelly to
# cause egitimate, um, customer resistance.
Who was it who said, ``Don't let the best be the enemy of the
good?'' Man, that was a good quote. Probably a misquote, but I
Storing the dependencies inside the files themselves certainly
seems like a good way to go, as it allows for the most modularity. Having
broken a BSD style rc script, I don't buy the argument about it dying in
the middle. I've had rc scripts die in the middle because of a typo, and
I can't imagine it getting any worse when the only thing that can really
break it is some (well tested) application dying.
The last time I did this on a BSD system, though, I did it the
SysV way (sequenced scripts), and the entire implementation looked like
for script in `ls /etc/rc.d`
The hard part was seperating all of the stuff from rc, netstart,
rc.local, etc... into modular units that made sense.
SA, beyond.com My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________