Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 19:16:28 +0000 From: Ben Hutchinson <benhutch@xfiles.org.uk> To: Doug White <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /etc/rc.d, and changes to /etc/rc? Message-ID: <19981118191628.A18022@xfiles.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.03.9811181039050.27173-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>; from Doug White on Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 10:45:15AM -0800 References: <19981118014446.C15587@xfiles.org.uk> <Pine.BSF.4.03.9811181039050.27173-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 10:45:15AM -0800, Doug White wrote: > I strongly oppose this; rc.d already exists and is standardized in several > releases. Such a change would be gratuitous. I wasn't suggesting that rc.d be ditched, merely that another option be provided if a port wished to make use of it. > > rc.shutdown.d would be a self-documenting name. rcK.d doesn't mean > anything to me. (K=kill?? I don't come from a Solaris background.) Yep, Knnscriptname generally means "this is a shutdown script, invoke me as scriptname stop". rc.shutdown.d would be fine, the examples I provided were merely a rough idea. > > It would save people from hacking /etc/rc.shutdown (like rc.d saves > hacking /etc/rc.local). Which is why it would (IMHO) be a good idea. - Ben 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?19981118191628.A18022>