Subject: re: PROPOSAL: /etc/rc, /etc/init.d/*, ...
To: Michael Richardson <email@example.com>
From: matthew green <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/01/1999 14:56:25
Luke> /etc/rc0.d will contain symlinks from KxxFOO -> ../init.d/FOO.
Luke> /etc/rc3.d will contain symlinks from SxxFOO -> ../init.d/FOO.
Was there a reason for /etc/rcX.d instead of /etc/rc.d/rcX.d which maybe
more familiar to Penguin people who decide to upgrade?
luke didn't want to do this part at all. it was only because there were
various people who were asking for this functionality that we included it.
and the purpose of this was to be backwards compatible to *sysV*. we
did not choose to use "/etc/rc.d/init.d" as the place for scripts to live,
(what freebsd uses). the above seems just as hacky.
personally, i (like kre) dislike the ".d" extensions on the directories
but that (again) is a concession to backwards compatibility.