Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:50:38 +1030 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: dyson@iquest.net Cc: wes@softweyr.com, tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: System V init (was: Linux to be deployed in Mexican schools; Where was FreeBSD?) Message-ID: <19981130115038.J831@freebie.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199811300115.UAA01966@y.dyson.net>; from John S. Dyson on Sun, Nov 29, 1998 at 08:15:48PM -0500 References: <19981130105425.C831@freebie.lemis.com> <199811300115.UAA01966@y.dyson.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday, 29 November 1998 at 20:15:48 -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: > Greg Lehey said: >> On Sunday, 29 November 1998 at 19:16:40 -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: >>> Greg Lehey said: >>>>> >>>>> Add additional packages, and see that BSD init ends up more >>>>> and more inadequate. >>>> >>>> I still don't see why. We have a method to run application startup >>>> and shutdown scripts already. Could you be more specific? >>> >>> Startup your network >> >> We do that already. > > How's about shutdown the network or database also with init. SYSV > init can already afford it. If better or finer control is needed, > the SYSV init is very close to the goal. Sure. Just modify /etc/rc.shutdown to run shutdown scripts from a directory. Call it /etc/rc3.d if you like. >>> or database with init? >> >> Why not? > > At least with SYSV init you have selective control over the subsystems > that you want to mess with. To the point that you know where the startup and shutdown scripts are. As has been pointed out, there can be dependencies which make it dangerous just to run one of them out of sequence. >>>>>>> SysV init has an established set of standards for usage of >>>>>>> startup/shutdown files. It doesn't solve ALL problems, but moves >>>>>>> forward, other than just staying idle. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, but as I said, that's all a question of scripts. >>>>> >>>>> Also, it is all a question of C-code, >>>> >>>> Where? >>> >>> SYSV-like init are available . >> >> Ah, that's what you mean. My question was more ``what does it take to >> do this?''. > > The already available SYSV-like inits. No sense in reinventing the > world. We already have an init which can do the job. No sense in reinventing the world. >>>>> but a framework enables better organization. However SYSV-init is >>>>> implemented, vendors do use it. >>>> >>>> I suppose there's one point there. But the only difference for >>>> installing under FreeBSD would be the name of the startup file. >>> >>> The more your system is nonstandard, the more it will be considered >>> to be nonstandard. >> >> Fine, once we've defined ``standard''. > > SYSV. The world already has too many self-defined standards. NIH > springs to mind. Hmm. OK, I'll let that one ride. What does POSIX.1 say? > If the existant SYSV inits need some polishing or a minor amount of > re-enginnering, and perhaps a formal policy needs to be created, then > so be it. Cobbling together yet another hack scheme seems to be wasted > effort and obfuscation. I don't seem to be coming across. FreeBSD init already has everything that we need to do this. > If SYSV init is missing some capabilities, then add them or clean > that up. FreeBSD's init is very very simple, but simpler than it > should be. Again, where's the missing functiionality? Greg -- See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key 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?19981130115038.J831>