Subject: Re: /etc/rc.d stuff
To: Simon J. Gerraty <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John Nemeth <email@example.com>
Date: 03/24/2000 21:11:10
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"