From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 27 11:45:30 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA22954 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cais.cais.com (root@cais.com [199.0.216.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA22949 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 11:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from earth.mat.net (root@earth.mat.net [205.252.122.1]) by cais.cais.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA06814; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 14:45:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Journey2.mat.net (journey2.mat.net [205.252.122.116]) by earth.mat.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA10848; Sun, 27 Apr 1997 14:45:19 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 14:44:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey To: patl@Phoenix.volant.org cc: Robert Withrow , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /etc/netstart bogons.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 27 Apr 1997 patl@Phoenix.volant.org wrote: > > > > 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. 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. [some deletions] > > I *hate* the stupid ``run-levels'' symlink stuff. > > Don't let your prejudice against the symlinks or run-levels > lead you into something even cruftier. You know, guys, I've been waiting a while for some kinda common consensus to develop, so that the parts of the SYSV startup that are better could migrate in. I don't think it's going to happen, because too many people have too strong prejudices, probably generated from fighting problems under one scenario or another. Be that as it may, do you think it might be possible to go *both* ways, and maybe offer the user a choice of how they set up their startup? I'm not talking about both ways at the same time, I'm talking about a different startup file architecture that would be offered for those of us who'd like it. This would allow the changes to go into shutdown, without forcing those that "*hate* the stupid ``run-levels''" into it. I think we have to understand the problem is political, not technical, adapt around it, and go forward. Comments? ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------