On Fri 2000-09-08 (22:53), Matthew Thyer wrote:
> I would like to see startup and shutdown scripts exist in a single
> directory ("/usr/local/etc/rc.d/" for ports and eventually
> "/etc/rc.d" when the system migrates to the same scheme).

I don't think we should move away from the 'base' system and 'extra'
stuff differentiation.  Any script that can support /etc/rc.d can
probably support /usr/local/etc/rc.d, /usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d, and others
based on a variable in /etc/rc.conf.

> The startup and shutdown functionality would be in the same script
> and the scripts should be named starting with a capital 'S' for
> startup and a capital 'K' for shutdown (I'm also keen on the HPUX
> startmsg and stopmsg one liners).

Why not just use chmod +x or chmod -x, like we do already?  This means
not having to rename things.

> The scripts will be differentiated from existing scripts (the old
> system) as the new system will only act on scripts that have a digit
> in the second character of their name (there could be a backward
> compatability process to act on all the others afterwards which
> would be disabled by default... presumably "disabled.S99rc.compat"
> or some such name).

I prefer chmod +x and chmod -x.

> Stop scripts will be a symbolic link to their startup script
> counterpart (and would simply not be executed if the K* file doesn't
> exist).  Symbolic links make it clear they are the same script.

I don't see the point.

> Scripts would be executed in alphabetical order (after the S or K)
> so the sysadmin has control over the execution order which is
> important.

I'd prefer a dependency based system.  (cf. Eivind Eklund's newrc, at

> Scripts would source common functions from a system file so we have
> control over future changes in functionality/reporting.  This would
> also make the template script very simple.

I imagine that's the way to do it.

> Eventually I would like the system to migrate to such a scheme but
> maintain the backward compatibility scripts /etc/netstart which
> could be implemented either by simply 'knowing' which rc scripts
> do network functionality or by reserving a range of numbers for
> network startup  <--- HACK!

This is why you want dependencies.

> I'd really like the system to allow stuff like "/etc/rc.d/S84named
> reread"  (or "restart", "reload" whatever is acceptable).

That's a natural extension to the current method, yes.  We should be
sure to fail on something we don't understand, and not (like we may do
now) run the default start script.

> I'd also really like at least named and perl to be removed from the
> base system but that's another thread.

I'll comment when you bring it up.  Warning: perl is necessary for
kernel builds.

> One of the big turn offs to FreeBSD in the System V world is:
> "What!, why do I need to know which signal to send blah to reload
> it ?".

I agree.  We need a simpler system.  Simple, and obvious.  None of this
complex symlink stuff.

Neil Blakey-Milner
Sunesi Clinical Systems

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to