Subject: Re: Allowing ${name}_path to be set in "rc.conf", was Re: Keeping /etc/defaults and /etc/rc.d in-sync
To: Simon J. Gerraty <>
From: Andrew Brown <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/30/2001 23:49:58
>>What's more, NetBSD currently (seems to) recognise this - ntpdate and
>>named are unordered with respect to each other in rc.d - so you kind of
>>get random choice as to which will start first.   That is, unless broken
>>by some other tie breaker - which appears (without going to study the code
>>in rcorder again) to be the lexical ordering of the names (ie: named comes
>>immediately before ntpdate in my system's startup order).
>I wish we'd just kept things simple and done the "ugly" init.d and links to
>rc.d/S*foo trick.  Of course, rcorder et al is better than not having 
>start/stop scripts at all.  But we probably wouldn't be having this thread 
>with the init.d model since you can customize the S*foo scripts all you like 
>without needing to be hurt by an update to init.d/*

no, you can't, since the connection from (for example)
/etc/rc2.d/S47thing to /etc/init.d/thing is either one of a symbolic
link (which means that an upgrade will toast your changes) or a hard
link (which means that an upgrade will either toast your changes or
have no effect on things you haven't changed).  or you can simply make
copies, which guarantees that an upgrade will have no effect at all.

|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|             * "ah!  i see you have the internet (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"       * "information is power -- share the wealth."