On Sat 2000-09-09 (00:05), Matthew Thyer wrote:
> > > 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.
> The point is that people are worried about scripts that aren't aware
> of the "start" and "stop" argument trying to start apps again at
> shutdown time.  With my scheme, the script wont be executed at shutdown
> time if the K* script doesn't exist.

If it's there, it gets executed.  If it's there, it was put there.  If
it was put there, it'll have support for "start" and "stop".

If an administrator puts a script in there that does the wrong thing,
that's his fault.  He could use the fall-back rc.local method.

We needn't support stupid behaviour by complicating the matter.

> > > 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
> > http://people.FreeBSD.org/~eivind/newrc.tar.gz)
> I haven't looked at this yet but off the top of my head, a dependency
> based system sounds overly complicated (consider ports authors) and
> unecessarily different from other systems.

I am considering port authors, and I think that dependency-based systems
will be _much_ better for them.  Thanks for bringing it up.

# before zope
# before apache
# after networking
# after nfs

is much better than:


and then figuring to use S43.foo.sh.

> > > 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.
> I know but I'm pretty keen on awk and would like all the perl dependencies
> to be re-written with awk or other tools as I dislike FreeBSD being
> dependent on such a beast as perl which should only exist as a port.
> Just look at the pain of getting perl 5.6.0 into the system.  I know the
> perl lovers will hate me but I thinks its worth having some ugly awk to
> get away from elegant perl being required in the base system.

I'm not particularly attached to perl, but it has a convenience in some
sections, like ports, that is unmatched by sed and awk.  Note the
excessive use of "perl -i -pe 's/foo/bar/'" for in-place substitution.
I've asked on at least two occasions for a simple, easy-to-use, thing to
do it without doing a two-liner that copies to another file, and then
replaces the old file with the new file.

> I'd go further to say that the whole base OS needs to be more modularised
> ala Solaris and Linux especially since we dont have an established binary
> patch process.  Its pretty hard to sell FreeBSD to my work masters when the
> only patch method is source code patches or a complete rebuild of -STABLE
> or just wait until the next release.  A more modular system could be
> upgraded more easily.

I agree.  I'd suggest you check out the freebsd-libh mailing list, and
ask there about how to check out the libh sources.  Your contributions
to the libh project will aid development of the next-generation package
management and installer.

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