From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 25 21:50:06 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id VAA11280 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 21:50:06 -0700 Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA11275 for ; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 21:50:03 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA19700 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for hackers@freebsd.org); Mon, 25 Sep 1995 23:36:53 -0500 Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA27756 for gryphon@healer.com; Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:58:51 -0500 From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Message-Id: <199509260358.WAA27756@bonkers.taronga.com> Subject: Re: ports startup scripts To: hackers@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 22:58:50 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <199509251657.MAA12655@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 25, 95 12:57:13 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1942 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > Can you guarantee that the install script is going to get the numbering > right if we go with implicit order based upon script name? In general, yes. There are really only a few big things they need to be super-picky about, and they are usually standard system components (like sendmail or nfs). > Or worse, is > every install going to check to make sure that no other scripts exists which > use that order number? It is not necessary that they do so. Package-name is already unique. > I think these are a LOT more dangerous. File order is explicit and simple. And impossible to manage. > Anything else is headaches. Why don't you go look at a System V box before blindly asserting this? If it was full of headaches I wouldn't have been using it and converting other systems to use it for the past 10 years. > And yes, I know that SysV does it, and that is works fine for whoever. > I don't like SysV. Specifically, I don't like this "feature" of SysV. Pity. It's one of the features of System V that are actually *useful*. > It boils down to that. A few other people have said it, and I'll say it too. > I don't want FreeBSD to become a SysV-clone. That's what Linux is for. I smell the scent of NIH. > If people want changes to the startup mechanism, to incorporate the best > concepts from SysV, that's fine. It's call improving. Which is what we're doing. > But throwing out the entire "rc" script concept, and going with (pick an > implemention, any mutant implementation) SysV-clone I consider bad. Nobody is talking about *cloning* System V. > Will you volunteer the same for your version? Including a re-write of the > "daily/weekly" stuff that reallly should use the same mechanism? Yes. IF it will get used, and not shouted out by someone who's got a System V phobia. The last project I did for FreeBSD got shunted aside, so I'm not willing to dive in on another one without some expectation that it'll get used.