Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
To: Luke Mewburn <>
From: Eduardo Horvath <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 05/01/2000 10:11:32
On Mon, 1 May 2000, Luke Mewburn wrote:

> The first two are about to be committed, barring serious objections.
> The rest probably need some more discussion.
> Details:
> 1. Using `shutdown' instead of `stop' as the argument to rc.d scripts at
>    shutdown(8) time. (Simon Burge posted about this last week)
> 	The rationale for this is that for a couple of reasons
> 	(including speed and system stability in the case of potential
> 	deadlock), having all of the rc.d scripts run with an argument
> 	of `stop' at shutdown is not necessarily the best idea.
> 	A suggestion has been to change /etc/rc.shutdown to call
> 	the /etc/rc.d/ scripts with `shutdown' instead of `stop'.
> 	That way, manual control of scripts is still possible, but
> 	only those scripts which explicitly need to be shutdown
> 	(e.g, xdm) are done so. Everything else will just rely upon
> 	the SIGTERM from init(8).

This is silly.  If `shutdown' is supposed not to be executed manually it
shouldn't be a script target.  You should just call `stop' with some
environmenal variable, say `SHUTDOWN=true' set and test the latter.

> 3. Reworking the configuration mechanism (replacing rc.conf)
> 	Be warned; this is a contentious issue!
> 	After many discussions with a variety of people, it appears
> 	that the configuration mechanism for rc.d should have the
> 	following attributes:
> 		* simple/stable
> 		* easy to manage by a user
> 		* easy to manage by system/automated scripts
> 		* easy to upgrade

You seem to forget:

		* fast

I still think that the ON/OFF part should be handled by the script's
presence or absence in the rc.d directory.  Put the scripts in an init.d
directory and copy them into rc.d to enable them.  That should get rid of
at least half of rc.conf, since most of that is turning services on and

Eduardo Horvath