Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:47:53 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Morgan Reed <morgan.s.reed@gmail.com> Cc: Brian <bri@sonicboom.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rc.local equivalent Message-ID: <46969379.4070509@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <b024b3480707120716o750b5170oeae4556dd9b3a390@mail.gmail.com> References: <b024b3480707110642h33a7fb7dy105df656965d646a@mail.gmail.com> <4695BB25.9040706@FreeBSD.org> <4695BF44.6090507@sonicboom.org> <b024b3480707120716o750b5170oeae4556dd9b3a390@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Morgan Reed wrote:
> On 7/12/07, Brian <bri@sonicboom.org> wrote:
>> man rc.local on a freebsd 7 box says
>
> Same for 6.2-STABLE.
>
>> So, rc.local, though not current is still supported.
>
> Yes, effectively deprecated
No, not deprecated at all. That term has a specific meaning in the
FreeBSD community, and your use of it here is very far away from it.
There is a big difference between the current status, "rc.local is
still supported, however you will probably get better results using
local rc.d scripts;" and "This is going away, so stop using it." The
latter would be "deprecated" in FreeBSD terminology, the former is
"supported" in anyone's book.
I'm harping on this a bit because I'm tired of hearing people say that
rc.local is deprecated. It leads to unnecessary stress on the part of
people who are reasonably relying on this mechanism.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46969379.4070509>