Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 15:46:02 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au> To: Bill/Carolyn Pechter <pechter@shell.monmouth.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, syssgm@dtir.qld.gov.au Subject: Re: SysV Init Message-ID: <199811200546.PAA25250@nymph.dtir.qld.gov.au> In-Reply-To: <199811191220.HAA09760@shell.monmouth.com> from Bill/Carolyn Pechter at "Thu, 19 Nov 1998 07:20:51 -0500" References: <199811191220.HAA09760@shell.monmouth.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 19th November 1998, Bill/Carolyn Pechter wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 1998, Chuck Robey wrote:
>Boy did I get flames when I proposed this.
Perfectly understandable. Wish I could think of some good personal attacks,
but flaming isn't really my style. Instead, I'll beseech thee to refrain
from consorting with the Dark One.
>This is one area where SysV is superior.
Woah! Put me down as absolutely against this position. Put my face on
your dart board, if you must!
>> I'm asking for a system where the legacy rc is there for those who want
^^^^^^
"Legacy" in this case is a nasty word. It's not legacy as far as I am
concerned. It is the current and best practice. I would be bitterly
disappointed if it was downgraded to a compatibility option on a SysV
style init system.
>> it (and would probably be installed by default) but a system of
>> run-levels and rc.d type stuff would be feasible. Such a thing could
>> then even be a port. I think such an approach would short-circuit most
>> of the complaints, and let the idea move forward with coding.
>
>I was looking to do this as a port of the SysV init, getty and
>hopefully one day package tools. If we got SVR4 or Solaris X86
>emulation we'd be set.
>
>My plan was two sysctl variables for current and past run state.
>This would avoid the need for a utmp change.
>
>kern.current_runlevel
>kern.prev_runlevel
>
>The who command would also be need modified to support who -R and
>read the kern.current_runlevel variable.
>
>I was thinking about porting getty_ps over along with gettydefs...
>
>Anyone spot anything else we'd need to do for compatibility?
I'll take the lateral view on this and assume you mean compatibility with
existing practice. :-) I hope that any additions you make will not
cause any *requirement* to use run levels for any purpose whatsoever.
Optional use among consenting adults is hard to stop.
And another thing... Oops, they're turning off the network for the building
relocation. Oh well, you'll have to wait for later before I can tell you
how much grief the SysV init system has given me over the years.
Stephen.
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?199811200546.PAA25250>