Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Simon J. Gerraty <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/08/2000 02:56:07
>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".
For what its worth, I don't know that anyone is claiming that rc.*conf*.d
is a winner. Certainly nothing has been committed yet, so pls don't
assume (yet) that this is being shoved down your throat.
Personally I think its a total lose to _have_ to edit rc.conf to "enable"
the script you just dumped in rc.d, and like many others I'd have
prefered a separate init.d and rc.d with presence in rc.d being the
enabler. And frankly I think that the Snnn Knnn approach is
so simple and more than up to the simple job of booting a system, that
I'd have preferred that too.
BUT all that does not add up to saying that rc.conf should go away.
[I know I did say that some time back - but I was only refering to the
"enable" rc.d/foo aspect.]
FWIW I think I read your proposal on this subject and while I can't
recall the details (or find the message right now) I'm pretty sure I did
not violetly object to it. Personally I've not made up my mind what
the solution is, though it should include not needing to edit files.
Perhaps a change of subject (line) would help everyone's stress levels.