Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:02:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: gryphon@healer.com (Coranth Gryphon) Cc: gryphon@healer.com, jmb@kryten.atinc.com, patl@asimov.volant.org, peter@taronga.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509260702.AAA09174@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199509260631.CAA15855@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 26, 95 02:31:31 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I can't see any more power from a directory listing proving control
> order vs. a control file providing that order.
>
> They both have their plusses and minuses.
>
> What functionality does the "rc?.d" sym-linked subdirs method gain over
> the control file model?
directory editing operations are designed to be atomic to an item
editing a file is a much more complex operation, particularly INSERTING
something into the right place, assuming that you have no
human doing it..
(not saying impossible, but
ln -s ../sbin/init.d/foobar S56foobar
is a LOT simpler to impliment than
a program that runs through a file looking for the correct place to
insert things..
The only other simple way of doing it would be:
echo "S56 foobar" >> startfile
and on startup..
files=`sort <startfile|grep "^S"| awk '{print $2}'`
for file in $files
do
sh -c $file start
done
and you can't convince me it's less likely to break down than option 1
>
> > |> Each sub-system has it's own script. A control file determines what
> > |> gets run when. Or each sub-system has it's own script, and directory
> > |> ordering in a sym-linked tree determines which gets run when.
>
> > Right. And it is orders-of-magnititude safer to add a file to a directory
> > than to automatically insert a line at the right place in a control file.
boy was this ever correct
>
> Ok. Something that appears to have been lost in one of my mail messages.
> I am not talking about the package install script editing the file
> itself. I am talking about it calling a command utility (written
> as part of the setup mechanism) which will do the editing.
great until someone edits it by hand during an emergency..
"I had to do it to get the system up"
>
I think a slightly simpified version is SIMPLER than the BSD system
once you think about adding packages
>
> > I think we want an inittab in either case. The difference is in how many
> > entries it is expected to have, and whether it is likely to be modified
> > at each site.
>
> OK. But doesn't the "inittab" and "rc?.d" provide the same redundant
> information that you diskliked in the control file method?
I seen inittab annd init.d as two ORTHOGONAL items..
you can have init.d even with only one run-level
inittab is just a generalisation of /etc/ttys,
(or put another way, /etc/ttys is a crippled inittab.
>
> What does the "inittab" your proposing gain over just the "rc?.d"
> directories with numbers dictating script order?
the two are orthogonal issues.
we can discuss tehm separatly!
>
> > We also want the individual service scripts to be the identical for
> > both methods.
>
> Definately.
YES
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509260702.AAA09174>