From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Sep 23 20:49:01 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id UAA16834 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:49:01 -0700 Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA16825 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:48:54 -0700 Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA03009 (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for hackers@freebsd.org); Sat, 23 Sep 1995 22:32:30 -0500 Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA01237; Sat, 23 Sep 1995 22:13:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 22:13:16 -0500 From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Message-Id: <199509240313.WAA01237@bonkers.taronga.com> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Newsgroups: taronga.freebsd.hackers In-Reply-To: References: <199509230139.UAA03748@bonkers.taronga.com> Organization: Taronga Park BBS Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk In article , Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > each rc?.d is a separate directory, with possibly distinct files. If you don't have the files with the same "service" name linked to each other, you have a messed up installation. That's no worse than having bootleg stuff in /etc/rc instead of /etc/rc.local. > with the K* and S* files in different directories, one for each >run level, ascertaining the differences is needlessly harder. There are no differences unless you're using a broken editor. Add a check for that to /etc/daily. > consider instead a file that lists which scripts to run for each >'run level or the term of the day we are using' and the order of >execution. now if both level A and level B need script Sfoo, there is >only one Sfoo. no symlinks required. no hard links required. it is >immediately obvious what is differnct and what is the same among the run >levels. And you have to trust 150 packages to edit this file without clobbering it. And you have to trust 100,000 system administrators to do the same. Getting them to "mv KXXfoo .KXXfoo" is easier. We have ... novice ... system admins at work. The number of botched systems went way down when we copied the run-level stuff from System V to our Xenix boxes. DEC thought the same thing... that's one of the things they picked up from System V for Digital UNIX... and they have been gratifyingly conservative about that. I'm not that averse to having a unified directory, but each component should have its own startup and config file. Like I said in my original response, just having /etc/rc.d with S and K scripts run by /etc/rc and shutdown would be a massive improvement. Run levels are *also* useful. Something like /etc/default to hold all the random *.conf files (/etc/conf.d?) would tidy up /etc no end too...