Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:22:23 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/rc.d location Message-ID: <20080605092223.GA94309@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20080604.225552.74744301.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20080604095356.GC63348@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20080604.225552.74744301.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:55:52PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> > Subject: /etc/rc.d location > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 12:53:56 +0300 >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > according to the hier(7), /etc directory contain system configuration > > files and scripts. I had an experience with old systems where /etc > > contained binaries for the system management, most of them now supply > > only symlinks in the /etc. AFAIR, HP-UX from 10.x moved the startup > > scripts from /etc into /sbin. I like this approach. > >=20 > > For us, moving /etc/rc, /etc/rc.d, /etc/rc.subr and similar files from > > /etc to /sbin (?) have the following benefits: > > 1. Standard update procedures, both installworld and any binary upgrade > > may treat the startup scripts as the usual system component. Now we > > rely on the mergemaster, that have to provide special support for > > /etc/rc.d at least. > > 2. I believe we consider user modifications to the rc.subr and /etc/rc.d > > in the same way as the modifications for the sources of the buildable > > binaries. Putting it away from /etc mean that /etc is fully controll= ed > > by the user instead of the user/system mix. > > 3. System provisioning (I am sorry for possibly marketroid term, but > > it is how it called there) becomes simpler, since we would have clean > > separation of the invariant part and locally changed part on the > > level of directories. > > Compatibility, at the first look, may be handled by the symlinks, as > > usual. >=20 > This is a very interesting thought. I'm not sure that /sbin is the > right place to put them. They aren't needed for normal system > operations and may interfere with user's operations. My main point is to allow /etc/rc* to be brought up to date by the usual update procedures without risk of hosing /etc. Whatever is found more suitable then /sbin is ok for me. >=20 > My knee jerk reaction is 'no'. But my more reasoned one might be > 'that's not a horrible idea.' I'm sure there's lots of implciations > that I've not thought of, however. Me too. That was the reason why I said that me is obviously wrong person to do the change. >=20 > > Now, having the VCS that makes moving files around not so prohibitely > > costly, I think the topic may be discussed. Obviously, I am not the > > person who actually understand the rc, and my proposal is only proposal > > to bring it to consideration in the case this appears to not be a > > nonsense for some rc@ master. >=20 > Just because we can copy files, doesn't mean we must. :-) Again, fully agree. But, unability to move was an absolute blocker for this issue in my opinion. --5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkhHsEoACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hsZQCfQiFwZcbhD87HwduUEc/kMmxM Aj8AoNQKK9oiqERhrfNlRqqg3YqqGsGZ =oaYF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5vNYLRcllDrimb99--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080605092223.GA94309>