From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Sep 21 10:53:03 1995 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id KAA22416 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 10:53:03 -0700 Received: from healer.com (healer-gw.Empire.Net [205.164.80.204]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA22409 ; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 10:52:48 -0700 Received: (from gryphon@localhost) by healer.com (8.6.11/8.6.9.1) id NAA00729; Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:50:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 13:50:53 -0400 From: Coranth Gryphon Message-Id: <199509211750.NAA00729@healer.com> To: chuckr@eng.umd.edu, gryphon@healer.com, kelly@fsl.noaa.gov, patl@asimov.volant.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, hackers@freebsd.org, julian@ref.tfs.com, ports@freebsd.org, terry@lambert.org Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Pat writes: > Coranth Gryphon wrote: > +> When are you going to start a daemon in more than one place? > +> Or set a global environment variable, then change it later? > +> > +> Define it as "Run Level N" includes all "Run Level 0..N-1". Simple. > If it really were that simple, why didn't SVr4 do it that way? You're asking why an OS that I think has a lousy implementation of run levels didn't do it right in the first place? :-) Answer: I don't know why they didn't do it right. That doesn't stop us from doing it right, does it? > I'm not suggesting that we become System V. But if they have a better > solution to one of our problems, why not adopt it? I have no problem > with differences that provide some significant technical advantage. Granted. I think run-levels are not a bad thing. I see no reason to adopt them, since I consider what we have to work fine. But lots of people seem to want run-levels. OK. We'll do it. > But differences just because "we aren't System V" only hurt us. We Granted. But keeping it identical just because they did like that is just as bad. Takes the best parts, the ideas that work. Keep anything that does not make a difference the same (to satisfy the "no gratuitous changes" camp), but be willing to change what we don't like for our sake. > don't want people refusing to run FreeBSD because it is too different > from the other unixes, (without significant advantage) do we? Then keep it only BSD and stop trying to System-V-ize it. > +> 8-10 unix flavors that I work with. So which one are you going to clone? >We have two reasonable choices: > 1. Whichever one we feel is technically superior. > 2. The one with the biggest market presence (Solaris2). Neither. Build our own implementation, the way FreeBSD wants it, that conforms to the basic framework. If I want to use Solaris, I'll use Solaris. I don't want FreeBSD to just become a cheap Solaris clone. > +> > skel > +> > +> I put all the stuff normally in /usr/share/skel in /etc/skel. > The current /usr/share/skel is a fine location. Except when you want to change default dot files. Then have to redo it after each install. > named > Keep it where it is (/etc/namedb). All of the books on DNS and BIND > expect it to be there. (I would class moving it into /etc/inet as > a gratuitous difference.) OK. It has enough files of its own to class it as a subsystem. |> Let's not go overboard and try and stick everything in it's own |> little nook and cranny. |> > Agreed. (Although I wouldn't necessarily make half a dozen a hard > limit. After all named only has five.) Granted. -coranth ------------------------------------------+------------------------+ Coranth Gryphon | "Faith Manages." | | - Satai Delenn | Phone: 603-598-3440 Fax: 603-598-3430 +------------------------+ USMail: 11 Carver St, Nashua, NH 03060 Disclaimer: All these words are yours, except Europa...