Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 10:59:03 -0700 (PDT) From: patl@Phoenix.volant.org To: Robert Withrow <witr@rwwa.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /etc/netstart bogons.. Message-ID: <ML-3.3.862163943.3010.patl@asimov> In-Reply-To: <199704271429.KAA02892@spooky.rwwa.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ccsanady@nyx.pr.mcs.net said: > :- And the two-digit prefix? These are no more than a hack aimed at > :- solving the dependancy problem > > I've often tought about *that* part. I think that it would be better > if the individual rc scripts would provide *shell functions* to > start, stop, etc. It would also provide a declaration section that would > define which things the package *requires*. You could then tsort the > total list of dependencies (from an outer *control* script) and execute > the appropriate functions in the required order. Explain to me exactly how this would be -easier- to use. Exactly what steps would be taken to 1) manually start/stop/restart a service. 2) Add a service to the restart sequence for multi-user. 3) Remove a service from the restart sequence for multi-user, but leave it available for manual start. 4) Find out the script execution order. As far as I can tell, the only win is the automatic dependency sorting; and I can easily imagine ports or packages missing a dependency update. The sequenced symlinks certainly aren't perfect; but they show the order at a glance; and by defining known sequence points it is easy for install scripts to insert a startup between the necessary levels. In practice, this is usually adequate to handle the dependencies. > I *hate* the stupid ``run-levels'' symlink stuff. Don't let your prejudice against the symlinks or run-levels lead you into something even cruftier. -Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ML-3.3.862163943.3010.patl>