Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 14:38:52 -0700 (PDT) From: dima@best.net (Dima Ruban) To: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed) Cc: dima@best.net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: btw Message-ID: <199706192138.OAA22385@burka.rdy.com> In-Reply-To: <199706191002.DAA29358@flea.best.net> from Darren Reed at "Jun 19, 97 07:54:50 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Darren Reed writes: > In some mail from Dima Ruban, sie said: > > > > Hey guys! > > > > Why do we call /etc/rc.local by: (thats from /etc/rc) > > # Do traditional (but rather obsolete) rc.local file if it exists. > > [ -f /etc/rc.local ] && sh /etc/rc.local > > ^^^^ > > and not ". /etc/rc.local"? > > does rc (sh) handle errors the same way with "sh xx" and ". xx" ? It doesn't realy matter. tick:/# tail -5 /etc/rc # Do traditional (but rather obsolete) rc.local file if it exists. [ -f /etc/rc.local ] && sh /etc/rc.local date exit 0 tick:/# Even if ". /etc/rc.local" will be abnormaly terminated we won't loose anything but "date" command :-) And one other thing. All rc.files that we have we run with "." and not with "sh". All but /etc/rc.local. > > -- dima
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706192138.OAA22385>