[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Moving rc.d scripts to base.tgz
> Why do you think that's a design decision? It may just well be an
> overlook of the implementation that really needs addressing.
It doesn't make any difference to me. If it's a bug, so far it hasn't been
recognised as such and it never has been such a big issue that I would bother
others with it.
> You can change anything you like locally; that's why you have the
> source tree. The point is: why is this change any different than,
> say, a change to /bin/ls ? (More below.)
My point is that scripts are easier to write, easier to modify, parts of
them can be generated on the fly and eval'd, and most importantly, changes
take effect immediately. No recompilation needed. That is, I believe, the
reason why the _executables_ in rc.d are scripts and not binaries like ls.
Are you saying I am supposed to modify /usr/src/etc/rc.d and rebuild every
time I want to add one line?
> They are code. If you want to change code, fine, go change the source tree
> just as you would do to modify any other binary or the kernel.
I don't buy that. In a sence, yes, scripts are 'code'. They also happen to
be configuration data. (More above on eval'ing.) I can't imagine having a
separate option for every little change I might want. That would either make
the scripts monstrously big or introduce a separate rc.subr-like companion
file for each of them.
Main Index |
Thread Index |