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
digress...

	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
this:

for script in `ls /etc/rc.d`
do
	$script start
done

	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 <dustin@spy.net>
|    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. ____________