From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Nov 30 07:10:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06686 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:10:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from iquest3.iquest.net (iquest3.iquest.net [209.43.20.203]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id HAA06680 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 07:10:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toor@y.dyson.net) Received: (qmail 25072 invoked from network); 30 Nov 1998 15:10:34 -0000 Received: from dyson.iquest.net (HELO y.dyson.net) (198.70.144.127) by iquest3.iquest.net with SMTP; 30 Nov 1998 15:10:34 -0000 Received: (from root@localhost) by y.dyson.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA02669; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:10:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199811301510.KAA02669@y.dyson.net> Subject: Re: System V init (was: Linux to be deployed in Mexican schools; Where was FreeBSD?) In-Reply-To: <19981130145803.I9226@follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Nov 30, 98 02:58:03 pm" To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 10:10:32 -0500 (EST) Cc: adrian@ubergeeks.com, rssh@grad.kiev.ua, grog@lemis.com, dyson@iquest.net, wes@softweyr.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG From: "John S. Dyson" Reply-To: dyson@iquest.net X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL38 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Eivind Eklund said: > > The SysV approach ("symlink hell" and "let's play > mix-the-os-and-the-apps") is not really a good solution to this. > Those people that have managed SysV style boxes (and I never have) > tell me you regularly have to re-number a bunch of scripts because > you're out of slots to get the order you want. Besides, the SysV > approach is a de-nomralization - it loose the information on what has > to run before what, and just store the final order. Computing the > final order from a normalized representation is cheap, and it allow > replacements to indicate exactly how they are to run. Overall, it > seems (to me) to be a better infrastructure. > The problem with the current structure is the single file (or small group of single files) that are not easily seperable. The default BSD configuration is pretty much a monolithic morass. I don't like a terrible morass of multiple files either. However, the current argument is similar to structured programming vs. excessive goto programming (or programming in traditional, non structured basic.) As released, the monolithic scheme is okay, but systems don't stay the way that they are when released from an OS vendor. With a proper structure, there is flexibility. The current rc setup isn't on the surface very flexible and is overly monolithic. Additionally, the more that "special tweaks" need to be done for a software port, the more there is cost for support of an OS. IMO, it is best to look like a predominant market player. Purely technical discussions end up being continually tweaked and tuned. I am suggesting a normalization to a market "standard." On the technical merits, this discussion can last forever, because there are lots and lots of technical solutions. There is the /usr/local/etc/rc.d thing, but that is a superficial attempt to look similar to the "standard", but doesn't really perform the functions of it. I suspect that a "really nice" rc scheme could be layered on top of the "standard" scheme, just like a "really nice" rc scheme could be layered on top of the BSD scheme. The question is, just why not be compatible? -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message