From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jun 21 10:48:53 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7598E106564A
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:48:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from gmx@ross.cx)
Received: from www81.your-server.de (www81.your-server.de [213.133.104.81])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 271158FC0A
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:48:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [92.76.95.179] (helo=michael-think)
	by www81.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.74) (envelope-from <gmx@ross.cx>)
	id 1ShewU-0008JI-TM; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:48:51 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
To: "Peter Jeremy" <peter@rulingia.com>, "Wojciech Puchar"
	<wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <4FDFB44D.9090308@gentoo.org> <4FE0ADCD.9010109@FreeBSD.org>
	<4FE0C123.8030301@gentoo.org>
	<CAGH67wRidMZrzjzTSdwud+Z5V--wOTN8CHXOWcOr+E5XHYo2rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FE0F773.1080403@gentoo.org>
	<CAGH67wQdb-c0Kf=60rkaJSH8Hd0OjwCi=rQQMzGq8xfp2q7b=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FE100F9.2050009@funtoo.org> <20120620073920.GA5300@lonesome.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206201618560.75278@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
	<CAPDOV49kkOdeV+6LVW5j5PO6VYrrNVqWZEksc_GzvWHjbufoAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120620214006.GA1651@aspire.rulingia.com>
	<alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211159280.1662@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:48:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Michael Ross" <gmx@ross.cx>
Message-ID: <op.wf81nddbg7njmm@michael-think>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206211159280.1662@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.00 (Win32)
X-Authenticated-Sender: gmx@ross.cx
X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 0.97.3/15065/Thu Jun 21 00:00:04 2012)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:13:12 +0000
Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>,
	openrc@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: Replacing rc(8) (Was: FreeBSD Boot Times)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:48:53 -0000

Am 21.06.2012, 12:22 Uhr, schrieb Wojciech Puchar  
<wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>:

> Lets make a summary.
>
> What functionality would be good to have in FreeBSD that doesn't exist:
>
> 1) "runlevels" with arbitrary names. runlevel change would start and  
> stop right services.
> 2) exploit startup parallelism.
>
>
> What we do not want to change:
>
> - file structure which is simple. one file in rc.d/ per service and one  
> global config file (rc.conf)
> - anything else that would make things more complicated.
>
>
> As for
>
> 1) i propose in rc.conf an option to put "NO", "YES" (or ALL) or  
> runlevel list for each service or runlevel exclusion list for service.
>
>
> examples:
>
> service1_enable="YES"
> service2_enable="NO"
> service3_enable="foolevel maintenance"
> service4_enable="YES -foolevel" (or ALL -funkyrunlevel)
>
> name of default runlevel may be "full" or "multiuser"
>
> service 1 will always work, service 2 never, service 3 only at runlevels  
> "foolevel" and "maintenance", service4 with any runlevel except  
> "foolevel".
>
> still single rc.conf, not much bigger in practice.
>
> 2) no change in rc.d/* scripts and rc.conf, but change in scripts.
>
>
> If everyone agree i think i may write this new scripts.


Nicely thought. Count me in for testing.

Do you think it would be possible to have something along the lines of

    ifconfig_em0="inet ..."   ( default (or unknown) runlevel )
    ifconfig_em0_foolevel="inet ..." ( foolevel runlevel )
    ifconfig_em0_maintenance="inet ..." ( maintanence runlevel )

too ?


Michael