From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 11 21:43:20 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3B437B479 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:43:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eAC5hAC01002; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:43:11 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id WAA01462; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:43:01 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200011120543.WAA01462@harmony.village.org> To: Jan Grant Subject: Re: What about rc.shutdown.local? Cc: Greg Black , Christoph Sold , Jimmy Olgeni , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:35:49 GMT." References: Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:43:01 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message Jan Grant writes: : It _is_ trivial, but you miss my point: I run several things at startup : that rely on a database service (which needs to be launched first). When : they shut down, the DB must still be running (it's taken down last). So : using a *.sh pattern for startup and shutdown scripts doesn't satisfy my : requirements. Right, that's why there's someone doing an evaluation of the NetBSD startup code to see how well it will work for exactly this sort of situation. Until that evaluation/proof of concept is complete, it would be premature to talk about changes to the FreeBSD system since the NetBSD one already copes with exactly this sort of situation. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message