From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 31 23:19:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA05368 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:19:28 -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 XAA05362 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:19:21 -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 AAA02501; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:19:07 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <36B5556B.1957A699@softweyr.com> Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 00:19:07 -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: Peter Jeremy CC: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, Robert Withrow Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... References: <99Feb1.143847est.40350@border.alcanet.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Peter Jeremy wrote: > > Peter Wemm wrote: > [make vs tsort] > >The advantage of make is that you could do a 'make -j12 boot' style thing > > There's no reason why you can't automatically build a makefile from > a list of dependencies embedded in the scripts. The script to do this > would be very similar to the script used to generate the input to tsort. > > I think the concept of allowing arbitrary `run level' names with > arbitrary dependencies is more important than whether it is implemented > using tsort(1) or make(1) to resolve the dependencies. Agreed. What external programs are called in the process is immaterial; as usual in the UNIX world we have an embarrassment of riches. ;^) So, let's define some baseline wishes here, then discuss how one might go about implementing them. I'll try to list what I've seen here so far. o The ability to start and stop individual subsystems, and start/stop all dependent subsystems. o The ability to specify some sort of alternate configuration name on system startup, for instance to move between an ethernet and PPP configuration. o The ability to add a package into the system configuration without editing existing scripts; each package configuration file should be standalone and self-contained. Did I hit the high points? I really think this is doable, if we can figure out what it is that we're trying to do. So far, Robert Withrow's proposal with each script providing a standard set of shell functions is looking pretty promising. -- "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