Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: /etc/rc, /etc/init.d/*, ...
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Guenther Grau <Guenther.Grau@de.bosch.com>
Date: 12/01/1999 23:17:48
first of all, thanx for working on this issue, which has
been discussed many times in heated discussions on various
> A new system should have the following attributes:
> * Separate scripts for each function, which support
> `start' and `stop' type functionality.
> * Ordering with more control than numeric prefixes on
> scripts (c.f. rcorder(8)).
> * Control over a function via /etc/rc.conf (rather than
> via the existance of a file/link in /etc/rc*.d).
> * The ability to generate /etc/rc and /etc/rc.shutdown
> from `/etc/init.d/*'.
> * Implementers should be able to add extra actions to a
> script (e.g, `reload', `debugon', etc) fairly easily.
> * Optional checks that a process isn't running before
> starting, is running before stopping, etc...
IMHO, the new system should also be compatible to System V init
I think it has been mentioned before but your scheme is missing
the ability to have real run levels. I know this could be implemented
using your scheme, but you do not seem to provide this. Is this
something that is left as an excercise to the user or do you
plan implementing this?
The init.d scripts you provide (they are still in rc.d in
your tar-file :-) have a proposed structure. Is there anything
that forces me (or any software vendor, for that matter) to
follow this scheme? Let's say I want to have the least differences
between my Solaris edition and my NetBSD edition. Can I just
drop in/use the "normal" Solaris scripts, i.e. without
setting any variables/using the /etc/rc.subr commands?
I think the sysV Sxx/Kxx version will still work, but
will the creation of /etc/rc still work?
Besides that, great work! It is not exactly what I would
have implemented. I tend to agree with others that we
should drop support for the old rc scheme completely, but
if there are enough people who still "need" the rc-way... :-)
Maybe we should simply do a poll to find out. On the
other hand, I didn't step up to do the implementation,
so I have to and do accept what you have come up with.
It looks like a good compromise. The only thing left
for discussion is now, what will be the default settings
used when NetBSD is shipped :-) What are your plans on
Thanx again, and don't get grumpy on users complaining
about your proposal. This seems to be a very sensible
area for BSD-people.