From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 31 19:48:41 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA12078 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:48:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from alcanet.com.au (border.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA12073 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:48:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter.jeremy@auss2.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <40350>; Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:38:47 +1100 Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 14:48:26 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Message-Id: <99Feb1.143847est.40350@border.alcanet.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Peter Wemm wrote: [make vs tsort] >The advantage of make is that you could do a 'make -j12 boot' style thing There's no reason why you can't automatically build a makefile from a list of dependencies embedded in the scripts. The script to do this would be very similar to the script used to generate the input to tsort. I think the concept of allowing arbitrary `run level' names with arbitrary dependencies is more important than whether it is implemented using tsort(1) or make(1) to resolve the dependencies. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message