Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:50:36 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc.shutdown Message-ID: <32D986DC.15FB7483@whistle.com> References: <Mutt.19970111201007.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <16902.853042470@time.cdrom.com> <Mutt.19970112112012.j@uriah.heep.sax.de> <Mutt.19970112160314.roberto@keltia.freenix.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ollivier Robert wrote: > > May I remind everyone that I proposed a change for this in 1994 ? :-) > > Here is the patch again, against pre-2.0 init of course so it must be > modified now. It was at the time a partial patch because the discussions at > that time pushed for changing reboot/halt as well. There is now support in halt (within the kernel) for registering shutdown methods (which we use here). > > I have this under CVS so I could probably merge it with our current init. that would be nice :) > > In this scheme, init does all the job of bringing the system down and > reboot/halt only send a signal to init instead of doing the job themselves. > The patch for reboot/halt has to be written though. > > Now that you can have rc.d directory upon statup, we could teach > rc.shutdown to use the rc.d/ scheme as well in order to have proper > init/shutdown time initializations... > > All my rc.d scripts already supports "start" and "stop" arguments for > example... > > ---------------------------------------------------- > #! /bin/sh > PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/news/etc:/usr/local/news/bin > [.. patch deleted ..] does anyone think this is a BAD thing? should the script be run going down to single user? (It's complement is run on going to multi-user) julian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32D986DC.15FB7483>