Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:05:13 +0100 From: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@freebsd.org Subject: Re: conf/130782: rc(8) makes undesirable assumptions on local startup scripts Message-ID: <20090122130513.GA70426@melamine.cuivre.fr.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <200901212315.n0LNFPOZ099152@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <200901212315.n0LNFPOZ099152@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* dougb@FreeBSD.org, 2009-01-22 : > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > State-Changed-By: dougb > State-Changed-When: Wed Jan 21 23:13:37 UTC 2009 > State-Changed-Why: > > I think that you misunderstand what fast* and quiet* do. > Short version is that they are handled internally by rc.d > so that the script itself needs no knowledge of them. Doug, At first I was a bit surprised by your response, since the behaviour we had observed here clearly isn't consistent with your description, so I investigated a bit further, and I think I now understand what is going on. Startup scripts actually *do* need to handle fast* and quiet* themselves *if* they are recognized by /etc/rc as "new style" scripts; everything is indeed handled transparently by /etc/rc.d/local for local scripts that are *not* "new style" scripts. The problem we had was an inconsistent script that *had* a "# PROVIDES:" comment (and so was deemed "new style" by /etc/rc), BUT failed to handle faststart & co (or use run_rc_command to handle them automatically). So, in the end I agree that the system scripts' behaviour is just fine (contrary to what I initially reported), but I still think we should clarify our documentation regarding the distinction between "new" and "old" startup scripts. Thomas.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090122130513.GA70426>