Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 12:01:31 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: dyson@iquest.net Cc: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no>, adrian@ubergeeks.com, rssh@grad.kiev.ua, grog@lemis.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: <3662EB8B.8FCFFECE@softweyr.com> References: <199811301829.NAA03045@y.dyson.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
>
> Eivind Eklund said:
> >
> > I'm in favour of compatible. I'm not sure if this require us to bring
> > in the bad sides of the SysV system.
> >
> IMO, SYSV init isn't one of the "bad" things about SYSV. If anything, it
> is just not finished (shipped before it was fully thought out.) I suspect
> that a reasonable compromise is to implement a SYSV style init correctly,
> providing SYSV compatibility, with the desired flexibility and functionality
> that we would all prefer.
I agree with this. The SYSV init scheme isn't perfect, but it IS better
than the mostly monolithic BSD system in that it allows a software vendor
to create an individual start up/shown down script for their package
that can be installed by copying it into a directory. It also allows
the system administrator to control when the package is started up and
shutdown through the naming convention.
> I truly believe that the current BSD scheme is more of a "punt" as opposed to
> a superior solution. Making a choice to stay with the limited BSD init scheme
> because the SYSV scheme has it's own problems doesn't solve the problems of
> either scheme. The SYSV scheme probably mechanically solves the problems better,
> but can be a mess. The BSD scheme is a problem because of it's monolithic and
> almost non-layered structure. These technical arguments really beg the issue
> of compatibility though.
I wasn't part of those dicussions, so I cannot comment on why staying with
the BSD system was chosen. I don't necessarily see this as a mistake that
was made so much as something we should consider overcoming now. Linux
and SYSV/Solaris compatibility have not been as important to FreeBSD in
the past as they are now, and will become in the near future.
> Ignoring technical arguments AGAIN, SYSV (and Linux) compatilbility are
> desirable for packaging and porting reasons.
I agree with this also, but want to observe that this doesn't necessarily
require wholesale adoption of the SYSV init mechanism. It might actually
be possible to do this well enough to vendor packages to install on
FreeBSD without cracking init; we could potentially add code to the rc
system to track the current 'runlevel' and to run the /etc/rc?.d scripts
as appropriate.
> As long as I am CC:'ed when people want to talk to me, I'll reply :-).
I'm not certain why you were drug into this, but since you're not objecting,
I'll continue to solicit (and value) your opinion. ;^)
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters +1.801.915.2061
Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com
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?3662EB8B.8FCFFECE>