Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:34:22 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Matthew Thyer <thyerm@camtech.net.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/local/etc/rc.d and /etc/rc.d Message-ID: <20000908153421.A58134@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <39B8E865.B77012B@camtech.net.au>; from thyerm@camtech.net.au on Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:53:49PM %2B0930 References: <39B8E865.B77012B@camtech.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri 2000-09-08 (22:53), Matthew Thyer wrote:
> I would like to see startup and shutdown scripts exist in a single
> directory ("/usr/local/etc/rc.d/" for ports and eventually
> "/etc/rc.d" when the system migrates to the same scheme).
I don't think we should move away from the 'base' system and 'extra'
stuff differentiation. Any script that can support /etc/rc.d can
probably support /usr/local/etc/rc.d, /usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d, and others
based on a variable in /etc/rc.conf.
> The startup and shutdown functionality would be in the same script
> and the scripts should be named starting with a capital 'S' for
> startup and a capital 'K' for shutdown (I'm also keen on the HPUX
> startmsg and stopmsg one liners).
Why not just use chmod +x or chmod -x, like we do already? This means
not having to rename things.
> The scripts will be differentiated from existing scripts (the old
> system) as the new system will only act on scripts that have a digit
> in the second character of their name (there could be a backward
> compatability process to act on all the others afterwards which
> would be disabled by default... presumably "disabled.S99rc.compat"
> or some such name).
I prefer chmod +x and chmod -x.
> Stop scripts will be a symbolic link to their startup script
> counterpart (and would simply not be executed if the K* file doesn't
> exist). Symbolic links make it clear they are the same script.
I don't see the point.
> Scripts would be executed in alphabetical order (after the S or K)
> so the sysadmin has control over the execution order which is
> important.
I'd prefer a dependency based system. (cf. Eivind Eklund's newrc, at
http://people.FreeBSD.org/~eivind/newrc.tar.gz)
> Scripts would source common functions from a system file so we have
> control over future changes in functionality/reporting. This would
> also make the template script very simple.
I imagine that's the way to do it.
> Eventually I would like the system to migrate to such a scheme but
> maintain the backward compatibility scripts /etc/netstart which
> could be implemented either by simply 'knowing' which rc scripts
> do network functionality or by reserving a range of numbers for
> network startup <--- HACK!
This is why you want dependencies.
> I'd really like the system to allow stuff like "/etc/rc.d/S84named
> reread" (or "restart", "reload" whatever is acceptable).
That's a natural extension to the current method, yes. We should be
sure to fail on something we don't understand, and not (like we may do
now) run the default start script.
> I'd also really like at least named and perl to be removed from the
> base system but that's another thread.
I'll comment when you bring it up. Warning: perl is necessary for
kernel builds.
> One of the big turn offs to FreeBSD in the System V world is:
> "What!, why do I need to know which signal to send blah to reload
> it ?".
I agree. We need a simpler system. Simple, and obvious. None of this
complex symlink stuff.
Neil
--
Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems
nbm@mithrandr.moria.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000908153421.A58134>