From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Sep 26 13:00:09 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA20001 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 13:00:09 -0700 Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id NAA19992 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 13:00:03 -0700 Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA08069; Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:48:41 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199509261848.LAA08069@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: ports startup scripts To: gryphon@healer.com (Coranth Gryphon) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 11:48:41 -0700 (MST) Cc: gryphon@healer.com, jmb@kryten.atinc.com, patl@asimov.volant.org, peter@taronga.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199509260631.CAA15855@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 26, 95 02:31:31 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2057 Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > I say they have equivalent functionality. The only counter argument made so > far is Terry's which talks about Union-FileSystem mounting to overlay files > into the /etc/rc?.d directories (which makes me shudder at the thought). > > What functionality does the "rc?.d" sym-linked subdirs method gain over > the control file model? The ability to have dataless systems with local file systems mounted after hitting a sufficiently high run level. You get to the NFS client run level, then do your union mounts, and then go to a higher run level. This would benefit both things like a Sybase server and an X boot/font server, which must have local data to server, but share their configuration with identical servers. A lab of 40 X terminals can not rely on one server. DNS rotoring between FTP server also falls into this category, even if I think the DNS rotor soloution is inferior to content addressable routing. > Ok. We have another basic question here: I am hanging onto less information > than you are, in that I am only keeping track of relative ordering, while > you are keeping track of specific numbers. I can't see anything I'm loosing > in not having the explicit numbers, aside from ease of translation back to > your system. Am I missing something? The ordering is only present to *delay* events until after depended-upon events have occurred. To use project management terminology, the amount of slack is irrelevant. We don't care about strictly enforcing order unless it falls into a dependency graph. Then we only care that we are started after who we depend upon. > |> Granted. Having things remove from a control file requires good > |> solid coding. > > >Which you trust every maker of a package to do... (And it can still > > That's what the command util is for. All the package maker does is > call that tool. I agree that you'd want a tool for this, if you wanted this. 8-). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.