Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 14:08:26 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi <narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee> To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>, FreeBSD Current <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: rc.d startup scripts Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1000509140456.5152D-100000@haldjas.folklore.ee> In-Reply-To: <20000506155749.K55274@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Errrmmm.... Really, did you check the archives for the issue? There used to be a real long thread on why/why not sysV style init scripts. It produced not one but several flamewars iirc 8-) In short - if we change from the present scheme, we want something better than just stop and restart entry points for the scripts. What happens if the restarting is not an atomic, independent act? On Sat, 6 May 2000, Will Andrews wrote: > Hello, > > I've noticed an inconsistency among our ports. It seems that not every port > that installs rc.d startup scripts includes methods to not only startup, > but also shutdown and/or restart, where appropriate. (Sent to -ports for > ports hackers' opinions.) > > Shouldn't this sort of thing be standardized? And maybe a similar method be > integrated into /etc/rc for restarting base system daemons? (Sent to > -current for src hackers' opinions.) > > Please continue specific discussion on either of these in their own list, > or if reply is general Cc both. > > -- > Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> > GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- > ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ > G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1000509140456.5152D-100000>