From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Oct 18 9:50:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from relay.gnf.org (relay.gnf.org [208.44.31.36]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD89137B419 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:49:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.gnf.org (smtp.gnf.org [10.0.0.11]) by relay.gnf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9IGnBs27394; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:49:21 -0700 Received: by mail.gnf.org (Postfix, from userid 888) id B3A1511E508; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.gnf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFF711A576; Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:46:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:46:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Gordon Tetlow To: Cc: Subject: Re: New rc.d init script roadmap In-Reply-To: <20011018091927.A18621@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, David O'Brien wrote: > PLEASE, only _ONE_ mailing list. We wouldn't have freebsd-arch separate > from freebsd-hackers if it didn't serve a different target area... I was hoping to get some people from -hackers to take a look at it. Although it was more for -arch. I'll leave it here. > Can you look at Kevin's work and see if you two could merge it into one > prototype? I just looked briefly at it. I think we are actually in about the same place, although he's a bit further along on the scripts. Although most of them are directly from NetBSD and not a conversion of the existing FreeBSD boot scripts/order. > > M1 (Patch included) > > Setup infrastructure > > Make rcorder compile > > I have sent patches to NetBSD to make rcorder compile properly. > But I have not bothered to put the pressure on them needed until we had a > working prototype -- so we could push back all of our changes at once. I don't know much about the NetBSD folks, but it might be easier to give them smaller sets so they don't get a single monolithic patch to try an integrate into their codebase. > I also fail to see why this is "milestone 1". These things should be > done as part of the patch + tarball that should be put up for prototype > testing. I was hoping to do this more or less in tree. That would also give people that don't want to download a patch an option of simply flipping a switch in /etc/rc.conf and trying out the new system. It's also M1 because it was necessary piece before rewriting all of the boot scripts. (It also happened to be the amount that I was able to create/test last night =) > > M2 > > Get FreeBSD to boot with the new boot scripts > > Rewrite the /etc/rc.d scripts to work with FreeBSD > > This is the hard part. :-( Yeah. I actually had a set of scripts that got my machine up through (most of) the network configuration. Unfortunately, I forgot to back them up off my laptop when I switched jobs. > > M4 > > Add true dependency checking to the infrastructure so that starting nfsd > > will start mountd and rpcbind > > The dependency checking is part of /etc/rc.d/*. Is there something > missing you have found? Well, once I have booted my machine, I might want to start an nfs server. If I just ran /etc/rc.d/nfsd start, it would fail, because that script doesn't know enought to start mountd (which in turn doesn't know enough to start rpcbind). I had an idea on how to make that all work. But we need to crawl before we start sprinting. > > I'm expecting M2 to run into quite a bikeshed, but hey, I got my nice > > There is no reason for it to. We need a tarball put up containing the > prototype. Several people will download it and install it on their > systems (including me). Once enough people have said there is basic > working functionality, I'll commit it. I suppose that would be a compelling enough reason to work out of tree. There is one main issue to resolve before I go through and rewrite the rc.d scripts. Do we want to keep the existing FreeBSD scripts as much as possible? or do we want them to look like NetBSD's? I prefer the former myself. I think Kevin's implementation has gone more for the latter. -gordon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message