From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 7 13:46:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA11425 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA11289 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id NAA02009; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:26:30 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199704072026.NAA02009@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: on the subject of changes to -RELEASEs... To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 13:26:29 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199704071659.CAA09397@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Apr 8, 97 02:29:15 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > How can this scheme cause Robert Withrow's AMD/NIS "eval" changes > > to /etc/sysconfig and /etc/rc to work on my machine? > > Let's qualify "this" here, as you are still lumping the two sets together. > > If you are taking your 2.2.1 sources and patching them to -STABLE, > you upgrade /etc/ like anyone else with source does. Contestant #1: That would be "By hand" for an hour, Bob... Bob: Ab-So-LUTE-Ly Right! > If you are applying a binary upgrade set, then perhaps you don't get > it. You're not losing there, and your system won't mysteriously > explode. The sceme isn't N-complete, but it's a shitload better > than what we have now, which is _nothing_. What we have now is "make world"... > > The soloution is known and long-standing, it's just never been > > adopted because of the /var and rc.d changes being "too SysV-like" > > (ie: NIH). > > This has nothing particularly to do with the issue at hand, and last > time it was brought up it wasn't NIH but nobody doing it that was the > issue. ??? Is this true? It's not how I remember it... are you saying that if I modified init for rc.d style operation and run states, that the change in operation would be acceptable for integration? > You are detracting from a practically achievable solution by claiming to > advocate a solution that is not workable within the current constraints. So modify the constraints. 8-). Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.