On Jul 1,  2:40pm, "Simon J. Gerraty" wrote:
} [Laine Stump wrote]:
}
} >Along similar lines - some people say that they don't like having to
} >edit rc.conf to prevent a particular subsystem from running at startup,
} 
} Since I was the one that started the rc.conf must die stream, I'll just 
} state again - for anyone still reading, that rc.conf is a good idea
} for providing default options etc.  What I object to is the YES/NO business.
} 
} >and want to just remove the rc.d file to make it not run. Others say
} >that removing the file is a pain, because then it's more difficult to
} >turn it back on, and they would rather have rc.conf. Doesn't it work to
} >just do a chmod -x of the file?  (This might require an extra tweak to
} >rcorder to work really well; I'm not sure as I haven't looked at

     I really don't like this idea, since it is a really grotty hack.
Also, it makes it difficult to determine what is enabled and what isn't
without making a close examination of the files.

} And this in conjunction with the rcrun idea is, I think a very good solution.  
} Thanks!  I generally install my start/stop script executable so I 
} can run them manually, but rcrun foo reload is no big deal, and toggling
} the execute bit to signify enable/dissable solves the religious debate 
} about link farms as well as the need for YES/NO in rc.conf.

     I would rather keep rc.conf and have an automated tool to
minipulate it.  I.e. instead of 'chmod -x foo', you would type 'rcrun
foo disable' Those that would prefer to just hand edit rc.conf are free
to continue doing so.  This seems like a better way to solve the
religious debate to me.

}-- End of excerpt from "Simon J. Gerraty"