On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 02:56:25PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
> personally, i (like kre) dislike the ".d" extensions on the directories
> but that (again) is a concession to backwards compatibility.

Given that the new scheme isn't really compatible with System V (or
Linux, FreeBSD etc.) (no runlevels, no S/K semantics and so forth),
I think we should lose the rc.d/init.d name. Apart from the appalling
uglyness of the .d notation, it might confuse people into assuming real
compatibility.

Other than that, I think the new scheme looks good. I honestly would
prefer the extremely robust static rc + rc.conf setup we have now,
because there are so few things that can break, and it's not like we
have gobs of commercial packages that demand being able to install a
startup script by dropping a file anyway, but I realise that a lot of
people want this. If we switch, and it looks that way to me, I think we
should do it whole-heartedly and not maintain old-rc compatibility as
the old simplicity won't really be there anymore and that sort of dual
system-ness tends to lead to confusion in general.


-- 
Soren