Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 21:29:13 -0700 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Robert Withrow <witr@rwwa.com> Cc: dcs@newsguy.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: more modular rc/init/uninit system... Message-ID: <19990205212913.C6050@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <199902060127.SAA23350@usr02.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 01:27:16AM %2B0000 References: <199902051331.IAA23625@spooky.rwwa.com> <199902060127.SAA23350@usr02.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 06, 1999 at 01:27:16AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > dcs@newsguy.com said:
> > :- Yep. I'm not against run states, just against run levels.
> >
> > I'm against both! See my earlier remarks about configuration mamagement.
>
> How do you propose to solve the Solaris binary compatability
> problem for commercial Solaris applications that install
> components into the rc.d directories in order to get them run
> at the correct time and in the correct order for dependent
> services requirements?
By writing a port that will install the startup script in the
right place and modify it as necessary. We really don't have
to implement the entire brain-dead mess of the SysV init system
just to start a simple (or even not so simple) application.
--
"Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters Softweyr LLC
http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com
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?19990205212913.C6050>