From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 12 16:55:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA07577 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:55:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id QAA07570 for ; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:55:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) with SMTP id QAA06500; Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:51:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <32D986DC.15FB7483@whistle.com> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 16:50:36 -0800 From: Julian Elischer Organization: Whistle Communications X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ollivier Robert CC: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc.shutdown References: <16902.853042470@time.cdrom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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