Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:17:50 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> Cc: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br>, current@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RC NG, ntp and routed Message-ID: <a05200f19ba1c95ad9ba1@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <20021211063348.GU45512@roark.gnf.org> References: <3DF4996E.1040706@tcoip.com.br> <20021210024350.GC16008@matrix.identd.net> <20021210162208.GJ45512@roark.gnf.org> <3DF61DE4.9070205@tcoip.com.br> <20021210225014.GA22267@matrix.identd.net> <20021211002318.GT45512@roark.gnf.org> <20021211054754.GA23972@matrix.identd.net> <20021211063348.GU45512@roark.gnf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:33 PM -0800 2002/12/10, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> DISKS
> FILESYSTEMS
> NETWORKING
> DAEMON
> LOGIN
>
> DISKS would be things that are needed to get the disks in order to start
> getting filesystems mounted (vinum, ccd, raidframe and friends). It may
> be a superflous step.
> FILESYSTEMS and NETWORKING are a problem because they kind of intertwine.
> It's not a clear cut case of mount all the filesystems then start the
> networking interfaces. In reality, FILESYSTEMS and NETWORKING are very
> much muddled (and cause me no end of grief as a result).
> DAEMON is for things like ssh and the like that need to run (thinking
> about nfsd, sshd, and just about any *d)
> LOGIN is just that. Things that are started at the end of system
> initialization.
I believe that DISKS should be split into DISKS_LOCAL and
DISKS_NETWORK. This allows us to get NETWORKING going after
DISKS_LOCAL and before DISKS_NETWORK. We may also want to split
NETWORKING into INTERFACES and ROUTING (and higher level networking),
in case there is anything that we might need to slide in-between. We
might even need to split NETWORKING into three parts.
> I'd like to think about really sitting down and overhauling the rc.d
> system after 5.0 is branched. I think that it's reasonable to say we
> should not try to be compatible with NetBSD except for keeping a common
> rc.subr and major initialization catagories (basically anything that is
> in all caps). Does anyone have a problem with dyking out the NetBSD
> specific portions after 5.0?
Nope. It's nice to be as close as we can feasibly get, but if it
doesn't work then it doesn't work, and we shouldn't unnecessarily
handicap ourselves just to be compatible.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
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?a05200f19ba1c95ad9ba1>