Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
To: Ken Hornstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 05/06/2000 09:26:02
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Ken Hornstein wrote:
# Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 01:26:51 -0400
# From: Ken Hornstein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
# To: email@example.com
# Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
# ># >From my point of view, a new startup system was proposed. Various
# ># people made comments about it. I fully believe that the general
# ># consensus was that the new system was a good thing.
# >What are you smoking? I haven't seen a general consensus stating anything
# >to that direction.
# Sigh. I can only disagree with your interpretation. This has been
# an ongoing discussion for YEARS. The general agreement (and if
# anyone ELSE disagrees with me, please come forward) has been that
# rc.d stuff is fine, and that runlevels are not necessary (I don't
# want to rehash the arguments for/against rc.d and runlevels, but
# I strongly believe this is a belief held by the majority of the
# NetBSD community; and no, I can't easily prove it). I have seen
# objections to this particular implementation, but I view that as
# implementation differences, not differences with the whole rc.d
# In fact, in my mind the use of rc.d was decided a long time ago (years).
# We're just now getting to the implementation.
Ken. You are not listening to what I was objecting to. rc.d I can deal
What I can't deal with is the splintering of rc.*conf* into rc.*conf*.d,
with some codgered-up tool like "virc".
I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear on that point. I can deal with
rc.d - it's OK. I'm not thrilled with it seeing as it removes a lot
of warm fuzzies, but I don't want to have to edit basic startup configurations
which consist of one or two, maybe three lines, scattered all over creation.
If you can go back and re-read my message with that in mind and come back
and say the same things, I'll be greatly surprised.
# Now, I understand some people have objections to the current rc.d
# scheme. I personally have my problems with it (for the record,
# I would have preferred a straight port of the Sys V S*/K* scripts,
# no runlevels), but as I understand it, the particulars of how rc.d
# has been implemented haven't been fully resolved yet. If _that_
# is your complaint, then I think that's still an ongoing process, and
# I'd wait to see what happens.
Again, I'm sorry for capping off on this. I'm not looking to make enemies.
Complaint == rc.conf.d. Nuff Said.
BSD: Resistance is NOT futile!