> > I'm about to dive into doing some work for an rc system for the ports
> > (${PREFIX}/etc/defaults && ${PREFIX}/etc/rc.conf) and have an interest
> > in learning about the way they've done things.  Does their paradigm
> > completely obsolete the rc.conf concept?  Were there any docs/project
> > pages regarding the RC effort that I could peruse for ideas? -sc
> No, the NetBSD paradigm doesn't obsolete the rc.conf concept at all,
> in fact rc.conf is still used in a functionally identical manner, though
> NetBSD and FreeBSD don't share a common set of variables for the file.

Very cool.


> The NetBSD rc.d rystem is a wonderfully simple concept.  Instead of
> having a large rc script, that's hard to modify programmatically,
> you have a a collection of small scripts, each of which contains a
> line stating what it provides, and what it requires.  An external
> program, rcorder, parses these small scripts, takes the PROVIDE and
> REQUIRE lines, and performs a topological sort, thus making it much
> easier to be assured that services are started in the proper order,
> and that all dependancies are fulfilled.

Even more cool.

> Please, please, please, do not make yet another attempt to expand
> the scope of the project into something which will not be easily
> implemented and accepted.

No problems there: I only want to get a way to distribute an rc.conf
to all systems and have it configure the optionally installed ports on
the various systems.  Beyond that, I'm not going to touch anything
that deals with /etc/rc.conf and friends: I was only wondering if
they'd implemented a new paradigm for rc scripts or found some way of
starting up programs/services that was worth noting: it doesn't sound
too radical, but rcorder does sound very interesting and sounds like
something to play with.  Thanks for the site and info, I'll hopefully
come back with some useful patches.  -sc

Sean Chittenden

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

Reply via email to