Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 01:52:31 +0200 (MET DST) From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@nic.follonett.no> To: witr@rwwa.com (Robert Withrow) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/netstart bogons.. Message-ID: <199704272352.BAA14541@nic.follonett.no> In-Reply-To: <199704271429.KAA02892@spooky.rwwa.com> from Robert Withrow at "Apr 27, 97 10:29:56 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ccsanady@nyx.pr.mcs.net said: > :- And the two-digit prefix? These are no more than a hack aimed at > :- solving the dependancy problem > > I've often tought about *that* part. I think that it would be better > if the individual rc scripts would provide *shell functions* to > start, stop, etc. Why shell functions instead of parameters? Parameters make it much easier to use the scripts interactively. > It would also provide a declaration section that would > define which things the package *requires*. You could then tsort the > total list of dependencies (from an outer *control* script) and execute > the appropriate functions in the required order. This is a very good idea. However, it can also be done using start/stop parameters. > I *hate* the stupid ``run-levels'' symlink stuff. I hate the symlinks. I've not yet found out whether there is a real need for runlevels (I certainly don't seem need it), but symlinking priorities is evil incarnate. If we want to support runlevels under your proposal, we can do it by just having a file listing daemons to start at each level - much nicer. It would be nice if the code automatically detected what daemons to stop and start for switching runlevel, instead of just starting all, as it does in at least RedHat. This would probably fit better with perl than sh, though. (I tried, and sh started to crumble under my fingers...) Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199704272352.BAA14541>