Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 22:05:54 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: iidpwr@lightlink.satcom.net (Imperial Irrigation District) Cc: iidpwr@lightlink.satcom.net, jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, hsu@cs.hut.fi, jmacd@freefall.cdrom.com, karl@mcs.com, terry@cs.weber.edu Subject: Re: What people are doing with FBSD Message-ID: <199507220505.WAA14561@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199507220454.VAA11103@lightlink.satcom.net> from "Imperial Irrigation District" at Jul 21, 95 09:54:27 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > What suggestion? Provide an upgrade path? Trust me, we're working > on it! :-) > > Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. > The suggestions refer to (1) seperate the configuration data > from the executable scripts such as rc, rc.local, netstart, ...etc. > The advantage of seperating the configuration data from the executable scripts > is easier to debug for both the user and the developer. This is work in process. If you look at the 2.0.5R versions of rc, and netstart at the top they have clear markers saying that if for some reason you need to modify this file we would like to know about it. >From those markers I have 40 some odd submissions of things to correct and enhance in /etc/rc and netstart to rectify the things folks had to tweak. Once I get this all intergrated (and most of it is done) and fully tested (some changes are in the field being used day to day, so I know them to be safe, others are, well, rather untested and have known problems) it will go into the 2.2 -current developement branch for a more extensive testing. Some or all of this may end up in 2.1, but I will not make promises at this date on that, it is a _very_ complex problem, that you just can't say seperate the data from the executable and be done with it as some of it involves very intertwined sequences that must be different depending on site configuration. (ie, diskless operation puts a royal twist into the order of events in /etc/rc, this is one problem I know I can not get solved by 2.1, gated puts another twist in with respect to when you clean /var/lock, etc, etc, etc :-(). > (2) provide an upgrade path. That would speed up the development too because > the current developer can upgrade to the latest and greatest. Moreover, that > would close the gap between commercial grade OS and non-commercial OS. > Most importantly provide an upgrade path is user friendly. Make the user > happy. I am not involved in that effort, but my understanding is that something is being worked on for this as well. > > -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507220505.WAA14561>