Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 11:44:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> To: <arch@freebsd.org> Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@automagic.org>, <kevin.way@overtone.org> Subject: Re: New rc.d init script roadmap Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110181139030.1612-100000@smtp.gnf.org> In-Reply-To: <20011018112838.C20348@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 01:19:45PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote: > > > There is one main issue to resolve before I go through and rewrite the > > > rc.d scripts. Do we want to keep the existing FreeBSD scripts as much as > > > possible? or do we want them to look like NetBSD's? I prefer the former > > > myself. I think Kevin's implementation has gone more for the latter. > > > > I think the former is more likely to result in scripts that > > exactly match the current functionality. > > Why? As long as the same services start up, why does it matter? Well, then what do you want to do about the massive differences between NetBSD and FreeBSD in /etc/defaults/rc.conf? We have gone with the convention of $<program>_enable while NetBSD has gone with $<program>. I don't want to break the entire history of that, but it's going to cause code divergence. I'd suggest to add conditional code that checks for FreeBSD and add _enable to the rcvar, but I don't really like that idea as it makes it difficult from just looking at the rc script for a program to determine what rc.conf variable to set. I'd love to see NetBSD's and FreeBSD's code converge on this, but I just don't know how feasible it is in the short to near term. -gordon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0110181139030.1612-100000>