From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 1 22:11:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA17432 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:11:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from obie.softweyr.com ([204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17421 for ; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:11:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (zaphod.softweyr.com [204.68.178.35]) by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA04505; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:05:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <36B695B3.E00558DC@softweyr.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 23:05:39 -0700 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr llc X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel O'Connor" CC: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, David Wolfskill Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > On 02-Feb-99 Wes Peters wrote: > > The dependency stuff is the only reason for doing this; it's the shaft > > the knobs attach to. It's been pointed out many times before that doing > > it without the "dependency stuff" is of little value. > > Oh, well that comes as a suprise to me :) > I really like the idea of having scripts to call to handle start/stop/reconf/status of > servers. The dependancy stuff is nice but its going to take some thinking about, whereas > the scripts are a nice (useful IMHO :) place to start. Well, then get started. Hacking up rc.* into rc.inet, rc.nfs, etc. should be pretty straightforward work. It's just not all that hard. ;^) > > Now that's a sparkling idea. I'm not sure we'll need the $PREFIX/etc/rc.d > > directories anymore, though, they were mostly a hack caused by our severe > > lack of an /etc/rc.d directory. I guess it won't add much to the complexity > Yes, perhaps. The idea of having the user installed stuff all in /usr/local is appealing > though. And any X-related stuff in /usr/XFree86/etc. As I said, it really wouldn't add much to the complexity either. > > to retain them, but it won't really work to do it partially. I could, for > > instance, write a script for my Perforce server in a couple of minutes, but > > since it depends on "network", it's just not really going to work without > > the system stuff, too. > Yes, but say you tweak a config file, you just run the script to reconf since you know > the network is up. This would still be nice for newbies even without the dependancy stuff. > (The idea being that the dependancy code just calls the scripts which are already in > place) That was what drove my idea to use a makefile; you could write the start/stop scripts and express the dependencies in the makefile; the start/stop scripts would be useful on their own. The disadvantage is that you now have to edit the Makefile to add or remove something; which we were trying to avoid. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message