Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:24:44 -0500 From: "Ugen Antsilevitch" <ugen@undp.org> To: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> Cc: Adrian Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com>, Gary Kline <kline@thought.org>, Jamie Lawrence <jal@ThirdAge.com>, Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>, Nik Clayton <nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /etc/rc.d, and changes to /etc/rc? Message-ID: <36533B1C.548E8797@undp.org> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981118001620.1471B-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com> <86emr0itlo.fsf@detlev.UUCP>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My 5 cents.
1) Using killall and such is EVIL and should be avoided. (There were some
example
scripts sent that use this program).
2) Just a suggestion - look into rc.d on any Solaris box. Now i am not offering
to steal
their code - thats illegal, but anything reasonable should look pretty much like
that or not be at all.
--Ugen
Joel Ray Holveck wrote:
> > I don't see where the above would ever be anything but a homegrown
> > script. If you want fancy do-it-all scripts, go for it. This is
> > exactly why I dislike start/stop scripts. Most of them lump several
> > realted but independent processes together.
>
> But often, multiple processes are needed to shut down a daemon. As
> this is a common task, then let's lump them together. If you need
> more granularity, we're not taking away the individual commands. If
> anything, we're exposing the necessary steps to users not yet familiar
> with a particular package.
>
> To put it another way: you've got touch, wall, and halt; do you still
> use shutdown?
>
> > Well, take a look at HP-UX's start/stop and init levels. It
> > actually works much better and is more orthogonal than Solaris. I find it
> > rather messy and I had to rewrite scripts because Solaris doesn't honor
> > the #! at the beginning of the scripts.
>
> Fix /etc/initscr (or whatever it is that runs the scripts; I've
> forgotten since then). Solaris honors #!, it's just got a broken init
> system that is likely easily fixed.
>
> >> The commonality is the major win, I think. Either the BSD
> >> world moves to the SysV model, or Sun and SCO and AIX and
> >> Linux should adopt our model.
> > By all means, let them come.
>
> You know as well as I do that most SVR4-worlders would find /etc/rc a
> step backwards. That just plain ain't gonna happen.
>
> > Most vendors that have start/stop scripts don't do a good job at
> > it. The ratsnest of sym/hard links is ridiculous and finding where a
> > start/stop script is run from is annoying.
>
> We're not talking about adopting the entire SysV init heirarchy, which
> is where most of the ratsnest comes from. We're talking about
> augmenting the existing rc system with a little bit more.
>
> > Now, consider the following.
> > Total lines in FreeBSD-2.2.6 /etc/rc.*
> > 1347 total
> > Total lines in IRIX 6.5's /etc/{b,}rc* and init.d scripts:
> > 4873 total
> > I think it would be fair to say the number of lines of rc-code
> > would be substantially larger under FreeBSD if converted to start/stop
> > scripts. The brevity and flexability is one of the current BSD rc files.
>
> Perhaps I should point out that the latter handles both startup and
> shutdown. The former handles startup only.
>
> Happy hacking,
> joelh
>
> --
> Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org
> Fourth law of programming:
> Anything that can go wrong wi
> sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36533B1C.548E8797>