Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 17:23:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: adrian@ubergeeks.com Cc: rssh@grad.kiev.ua, grog@lemis.com, dyson@iquest.net, wes@softweyr.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: System V init (was: Linux to be deployed in Mexican schools; Where was FreeBSD?) Message-ID: <199811301723.KAA09125@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981129235518.1707A-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com> from "ADRIAN Filipi-Martin" at Nov 30, 98 00:01:16 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> How many run-levels are you proposing? There are only 7 standard > ones, AFIK. I cannot really see adding runlevels for each type of > subsystem a practicle. Infinity plus one? Actually, 2^(number of services) would be nice, too. Then I could specify service clusters. Of course, I'd prefer to have service clusters called out as a group using a script, but if you really want to discuss the validity of run states/levels, there are those of us who'll oblige you. > > I. e. in SYSV dependences between subsystem are implicity stored in > > /etc/rc dierectory tree. > > X depend from Y --> X must start after Y -> > > /etc/rc/X.rank > /etc/rc/Y.rank > > or if X.rank = Y.rank then S<X-NUMBER>-X bigger than S<Y-NUMBER>-Y > > Every implementation I have see so far actually uses alpha-numeric > ordering. Things being implicit and scattered in varions directories is > one reason I prefer the simpler, cohesive BSD rc's. Last time I looked, the ASCII collation sequence order was explicit, not implicit... > > for FreeBSD, I think, ideally is to have explicit graph of dependences, > > in some form, where init-states is marks of nodes on it, and during > > init close all nodes which have rank biggest then argument. > > > > may be in each rc.X implement command 'depend_from' which show > > all programs, after restarting of ones is nessesory to restart X. > > I'm not really sure this sort of dynamic behavior would really be > useful. Systems tend to all boot in the same basic sequence, with soe > skipping certian subsystems that are not needed. Then don't use it. No one is forcing you, personally, away from the standard BSD all/single-user set. If you don't need a state where the system is up, but NFS isn't being served because the system is being backed up, then don't put the system into that state. Pretty simple. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811301723.KAA09125>