Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:14:24 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> To: Doug Barton <DougB@DougBarton.net> Cc: Cyrille Lefevre <clefevre@redirect.to>, Andrew Hesford <ajh3@usrlib.org>, Gordon Tetlow <gordont@bluemtn.net>, Jon Parise <jon@csh.rit.edu>, Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, Mark Santcroos <marks@ripe.net>, bsddiy@163.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, eivind@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: import NetBSD rc system Message-ID: <200106141814.f5EIEOV15979@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 14 Jun 2001 11:03:28 PDT." <3B28FC70.1FC1F18B@DougBarton.net> References: <3B28FC70.1FC1F18B@DougBarton.net> <lmmvoq3r.fsf@gits.dyndns.org> <Pine.BSF.4.33.0106131750560.94127-100000@sdmail0.sd.bmarts.com> <20010613202415.A3689@core.usrlib.org> <4rtjnv83.fsf@gits.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <3B28FC70.1FC1F18B@DougBarton.net> Doug Barton writes: : > in fact, the require keyword isn't sufficient in it's own. there : > should be pre_require and post_require keywords since nfsd needs to : > start mountd before to start nfsd then rpc.statd and rpc.lockd have to : > be started after nfsd. : : Cyrille has already made two excellent points, gold stars for him. :) But Cyrille's point isn't very good. nfsd doesn't need rpc.statd to start. To get the "thing" known as "nfs server" you have to start things, but that's different than just nfsd. There's now *NEED* to do that. It is a kludge that breaks the symetry of the NetBSD system for little gain other than being different. and that's a big lose. Also, the whole idea of adding "requires" and "provides" code is really bad. The whole reason that NetBSD has these listed as keywords in comments is so that you can grep them out without having to start 2 sheels per shell script to find these things otu. They had an eary verison of this that was so slow they shit canned that part of the it (or maybe it was just back of the envelope calcs that killed the idea before it was implemented). This means that we can make it work on the low end systems, and NetBSD's boot won't take forever on small systems. : First, there are some weaknesses in netbsd's : system that we don't want to replicate. Speficially, what are these? : Second, Eivind has already done : some excellent work in this area. Take a look at : http://people.freebsd.org/~eivind/newrc.html for more info. With all due respect to Eivind, he's reinventing the wheel. I'd like to see NetBSD's brought in with an absolute minimum of change. : Third, we want : to gather the people who are interested in working on this project on a : mailing list and have some conversations with the netbsd developers about : what they would do differently if given the chance. We've already got Luke : Mewburn on board for this, but his time is limited until after his : presentation at USENIX on this topic is done. I'd be happy to spend up to 20 hours working on this project. However, I don't want to spend 20 hours sniping and carping about how bad NetBSD's system is before it even gets ported. I'd do the port, to the point it is ready to import and provide diffs for people to try. But I don't want to get in the middle of a pissing match to tweak the thing to the point that we can't reimport later work by NetBSD or produces soemthing that Luke will hate. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106141814.f5EIEOV15979>