Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 14:58:03 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Adrian Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com>, rssh@grad.kiev.ua Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, dyson@iquest.net, 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: <19981130145803.I9226@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981129235518.1707A-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com>; from ADRIAN Filipi-Martin on Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 12:01:16AM -0500 References: <36620B32.74F76F43@Shevchenko.Kiev.UA> <Pine.BSF.3.96.981129235518.1707A-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Nov 30, 1998 at 12:01:16AM -0500, ADRIAN Filipi-Martin wrote:
> > for FreeBSD, I think, ideally is to have explicit graph of dependences,
> > in some form, where init-states is marks of nodes on it, and during
> > init close all nodes which have rank biggest then argument.
> >
> > may be in each rc.X implement command 'depend_from' which show
> > all programs, after restarting of ones is nessesory to restart X.
>
> I'm not really sure this sort of dynamic behavior would really be
> useful. Systems tend to all boot in the same basic sequence, with soe
> skipping certian subsystems that are not needed.
The clue is IMHO not really the ability to switch a machine to
different runstates and define runstates easily. That's just icing -
useful in some contexts, very neat, but not so important that we
couldn't live without it (and have lived well without it, so far).
What I want is the ability to gracefully have 3rd party software be
added to the system, being able to replace system services, and be
administered like it was always an integrated part.
The SysV approach ("symlink hell" and "let's play
mix-the-os-and-the-apps") is not really a good solution to this.
Those people that have managed SysV style boxes (and I never have)
tell me you regularly have to re-number a bunch of scripts because
you're out of slots to get the order you want. Besides, the SysV
approach is a de-nomralization - it loose the information on what has
to run before what, and just store the final order. Computing the
final order from a normalized representation is cheap, and it allow
replacements to indicate exactly how they are to run. Overall, it
seems (to me) to be a better infrastructure.
Eivind.
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?19981130145803.I9226>