On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 08:05:27PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
Just a note that further (negative) commentors should really do a
little investigating before jumping to conclusions. This thread
has gone on long enough with people making uninformed guesses and
assumptions.
> All I care about is /etc/rc.conf ... I like the idea of splitting
> the various other rc files into pieces as long as I can control them
> all from /etc/rc.conf. If it's extensible that's even better!
Exactly. All of the configuration knobs remain in /etc/rc.conf
(so everything works the way it does know, including
sysinstall(8)-generated configuration values. /etc/defaults is
there with all of our old friends, too.
With the proposed NetBSD-derived system, individual services are
isolated in their very own scripts, making starting / stopping
them very convenient (the only advantage I see to the SysV
layout). In addition, the integrity of dependency graph is also
maintained, while retaining extra flexibility.
> What I really hate is the SysV/Linux/Solaris style of rc.d configuration
> directories where you create/maintain softlinks in specially named
> directories (named after the run level) to a master set of
> startup files. Blech. Yuch. Ptooey!
Agreed. It's not that I have a difficult time grokking the
layout; there's just too much work involved (both in the fingers
and in the head) working with a SysV-like setup (IHO, no need to
try changing my mind).
--
Jon Parise ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) . Rochester Inst. of Technology
http://www.csh.rit.edu/~jon/ : Computer Science House Member
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
