Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 18:42:33 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: gryphon@healer.com (Coranth Gryphon) Cc: gryphon@healer.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, jmb@kryten.atinc.com, patl@asimov.volant.org, peter@taronga.com Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509260142.SAA06510@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199509260053.UAA14129@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 25, 95 08:53:28 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Functionally, I can union mount my script directory over a read-only > > template directory to add my local scripts. > > OK. But I really doubt this is something the average person is going > to attempt. You're right. The average person is going to use the Windows95 that was loaded on his system by his dealer. > > How do I union two files? > > Have a basic file, and a local file which is called aftter the basic file. Unacceptable for replacing things like mail daemons if something in the basic file relies on having an smtp server present. > No, you've got me there, you can't easily mix lines from two > different files to get an arbitrary order. > > But this falls into my very-small-fraction of people category. > I really can't conceive of it being a general case to want two > unique sets of start ups that need to be interspesed, in a generic > manner, on the fly. I think this is the conceptual problem. These are not two unique sets of startups. These are complementary sets of startups, one of which should not be modified by virtue of it being part of the default distribution and therefore a sore point at upgrade time if it *is* modified, or which may be on read-only media (CDROM or NFS R/O mount). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509260142.SAA06510>