From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jan 30 09:38:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id JAA15506 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:38:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from nomad.dataplex.net (nomad.dataplex.net [208.2.87.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA15496 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:38:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from localhost (rkw@localhost) by nomad.dataplex.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA40225; Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:38:06 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:38:06 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Wackerbarth To: wes@softweyr.com cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... In-Reply-To: <36B33C2B.CDB07CCB@softweyr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Re: Using "make" to control the startup sequence. I thought of this some time ago and, although it seems simple, rejected the idea in this form. Many of the systems that I use would not be able to utilize such a mechanism because they don't have "make" installed. Further, there is a lot that needs to get done before you get to the point that "make" will run. However, I still hold out for the possibility that we could use "make" to generate a static list based on the configuration. This list would then be ready for the next reboot. We could even have a knob that prunes the static list at the point where "make" can take over and do things dynamically. IMHO, the scheme should be able to be aborted at any point and restarted with the same or a different target. On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Wes wrote: > And wouldn't you know it, we already have a tool for managing > dependency graphs. ;^) > > How about a Makefile, with "startup" and "shutdown" targets, and > individual "start" and "stop" targets for each subsystem? The > configuration settings would remain in rc.conf and rc.conf.local, > where they belong, and each "subsystem" startup moved to an > individual script. /etc/rc would bring the system up just far > enough for make to function, and then cd /etc; make startup. You > could start a particular subsystem, or shut it down, with i.e. > "make start.nfsserver" or "make stop.nfsserver". > > Good? Bad? Indifferent? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message