Subject: Re: Keeping /etc/defaults and /etc/rc.d in-sync
To: Greywolf <>
From: Laine Stump <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/27/2001 09:20:36
Greywolf <> writes:

> # Frederick Bruckman <> writes:
> # > Besides, it's not true that "rc.d" has no user configurable parts
> # > inside. As we've totally failed to come to any agreement on how to
> # > handle pkgsrc rc.d scripts, we tell people to copy them into rc.d
> # > themselves.

> On 26 Dec 2001, Laine Stump wrote:
> # Leading me to wonder out loud if maybe there shouldn't be two stages
> # of rc.d, for example's sake call them "/etc/rc.d.defaults" (or maybe
> # /etc/defaults/rc.d) and "/etc/rc.d". The former would contain the
> # "factory" versions of all the files, and would be automatically
> # updated by a make build, or a binary upgrade, while the latter would
> # not be touched by either operation. The two directories would be
> # treated kind of like a union file system, with files in /etc/rc.d
> # taking precedence over the same file in /etc/rc.d/defaults.

> 1.  Isn't /etc/rc.d/* supposed to depend upon stuff from /etc/rc.conf,
>     and not need mangling?

Yes, but from the previous messages, that is apparently not the case
(I know I haven't modified any stock files in my /etc/rc.d, but I
guess some people have, or at least believe that they should be able
to).  If comments to this effect hadn't been made, I wouldn't have even
been thinking about separating local changes from stock files.

> 2.  Isn't /etc/defaults/rc.conf the distribution default from which we
>     derive /etc/rc.conf?

Yes, and your point is?

> 3.  Isn't this why we split everything into /etc/rc.d from /etc/rc
>     ( requiring subsequent performance tuning ) in the first place?

Yes, at least partly. And now someone has suggested a slight tweak to
that, leading to further discussion. So?

> # I agree, btw, that having the update of all this stuff done
> # automatically would be nice.  It only takes a 5 minute trip with
> # dirdiff to update /etc from the latest sources by hand, but it would
> # be nice to not need to remember to do it.
> Not to be insulting, Laine, but, excuse me?  "It would be nice not to have
> to think."?  Sorry, I really don't mean to offend, but that's exactly
> how I read that, above.

I hope you never work as a news reporter then, as I neither said, nor
meant, anything of the sort. However, it is true that, especially for
people who upgrade often, the less details that need to be remembered
(and the less time that must be spent), the better. Every task that
needs to be done by hand is a task potentially forgotten or botched;
humans are inherently more error prone than machines, and slower.

Keep in mind, btw, that personally I'm perfectly content with the
status quo, just saying "well, if A bothers you, then what about
doing something like B".