On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:

> This, like named, is a perfect example of why multiple namespaces for
> rc.d scripts (and configuration parameters) must exist.

Good. That's the key to Luke's proposal...

> The so-called "chaining" scheme is the best way to maintain 100%
> consistency between all hierarchies, though with some care it should be
> possible to have multiple hierarchies on the root filesystem with the
> runtime dependencies mixed, but the configuration parameters separate.

"Chaining" is ugly and complicated, and denies the user the ability to
arbitrarily set the order the scripts are executed (barring re-writing
the whole mechanism). Shades of "rc.*.local". Moreover, as long as you
have protected namespaces, all the scripts *can* go in the same
directory, so why make it complicated?

Frederick