Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 21:53:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: witr@rwwa.com (Robert Withrow) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, witr@rwwa.com, dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... Message-ID: <199902062153.OAA20073@usr02.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199902061509.KAA29774@spooky.rwwa.com> from "Robert Withrow" at Feb 6, 99 10:09:20 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> :- in order to get them run at the correct time and in > :- the correct order for dependent services requirements? > > Well, that's the problem, isn't it? How can they ever be sure > that they are running things in the "correct order" unless they > have global knowlege of every possible application that requires > startup services, which they can never have. This is the fundamentally > broken part of the SYSV startup services design. No. The SysV design is equivalent using sync writes to keep your FFS integrity intact. The issue is order of operation. The SysV design is one, not very elegant, soloution to ordering, just as FFS sync writes are one, not very elegant soloution. Yeah, soft updates are very nice in FFS. And someone should solve the ordering problem for rc files graphically, as well, so that there's a nice elegant soloution to the problem. But in the absence of an elegant soloution, anything that works is, by definition, better than anything that doesn't. Right now we have this monolithic rc file that has to be sed'ed during installs, resulting in potentially conflicting or out of order and therefore unstable startup scripts. Basically, BSD has it's rc files mounted async. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199902062153.OAA20073>