Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 08:59:59AM -0700, Arun Sharma wrote: While we're on the init topic, is there any strong feeling here about BSD /etc/rc* scripts Vs SysV ? Yes, lots. The last round of discussion was covered in the freebsd-arch mailing list, the archives should be enlightening. N -- [intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed, non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs the links. -- Tom Christiansen in 37514...@cs.colorado.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
san...@sanpei.org (MIHIRA Yoshiro) writes: # Yes, We modify some ports to support start,stop. And others to no longer support it. The Apache 1.2 port used to support it, the Apache 1.3 port doesn't. Here's a replacement: #!/bin/sh if [ ! -x /usr/local/sbin/apachectl ] ; then echo apachectl not found exit 1 fi case $1 in start|stop|restart) /usr/local/sbin/apachectl $1 ;; *) echo Usage: $(basename $0) start|stop|restart exit 1 ;; esac DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - d...@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
[Call for review] init(8): new feature
Hi, hackers!
While the -core is busy to review/approve this patch,
I would like to know your opinion. What do you think
of it?
Thanks,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA of the
r...@ucb.crimea.ua United Commercial Bank,
r...@freebsd.orgFreeBSD committer,
+380.652.247.647Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
---BeginMessage---
Hi!
We have a lot of PRs (5451, 9066, 10035) complaining the lack
of running /etc/rc.shutdown from shutdown(8)/reboot(8).
In fact, there are two ways to cleanly (with /etc/rc.shutdown)
reboot the system:
- send init(8) SIGINT signal;
- run shutdown(8) without ``-r'' and ``-h'' switches, so it
will send init(8) SIGINT signal.
On the other hand, there is no easy (single-step) way to run
/etc/rc.shutdown and then halt plus optionally power-off the
system.
The patch below (mostly from PR#5451) removes this limitation
by adding two new features to init(8):
- when init(8) receives SIGUSR1, it will act like in SIGINT
case, but will call reboot(RB_HALT);
- when init(8) receives SIGUSR2, it will act like in SIGINT
case, but will call reboot(RB_HALT|RB_POWEROFF).
Also, when compiled with -DCOMPAT_SYSV_INIT, it is now possible
to emulate SysV's init(8) behaviour.
I have tested it on my 3.2-STABLE, and it works like a charm.
Very handy!!!
Could you please review it?
Thanks,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA of the
r...@ucb.crimea.ua United Commercial Bank
+380.652.247.647Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /usr/FreeBSD-CVS/src/sbin/init/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -r1.15 Makefile
--- Makefile1998/01/20 10:39:56 1.15
+++ Makefile1999/06/11 20:14:19
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
BINMODE=500
INSTALLFLAGS=-fschg
CFLAGS+=-DDEBUGSHELL -DSECURE -DLOGIN_CAP
+CFLAGS+=-DCOMPAT_SYSV_INIT
.if exists(${.CURDIR}/../../secure) !defined(NOCRYPT) !defined(NOSECURE)
DISTRIBUTION=des
Index: init.c
===
RCS file: /usr/FreeBSD-CVS/src/sbin/init/init.c,v
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -r1.31 init.c
--- init.c 1998/07/22 05:45:11 1.31
+++ init.c 1999/06/11 20:28:59
@@ -132,6 +132,7 @@
#define TRUE 1
int Reboot = FALSE;
+int howto = RB_AUTOBOOT;
int devfs;
@@ -203,9 +204,44 @@
errx(1, %s, strerror(EPERM));
/* System V users like to reexec init. */
- if (getpid() != 1)
- errx(1, already running);
-
+ if (getpid() != 1) {
+#ifdef COMPAT_SYSV_INIT
+ /* So give them what they want */
+ if (argc 1) {
+ if (strlen(argv[1]) == 1) {
+ register char state = *argv[1];
+ register int sig;
+
+ switch (state) {
+ case '0': /* halt + poweroff */
+ sig = SIGUSR2;
+ break;
+ case '1': /* single user */
+ case 's':
+ sig = SIGTERM;
+ break;
+ case '6': /* reboot */
+ sig = SIGINT;
+ break;
+ case 'q': /* re-read /etc/ttys */
+ sig = SIGHUP;
+ break;
+ case 'c': /* block further logins */
+ sig = SIGTSTP;
+ break;
+ default:
+ goto usage;
+ }
+ kill(1, sig);
+ _exit(0);
+ } else
+usage:
+ errx(1, invalid level ``%s''\n
+ usage: init [016cqs], argv[1]);
+ } else
+#endif
+ errx(1, already running);
+ }
/*
* Note that this does NOT open a file...
* Does 'init' deserve its own facility number?
@@ -259,11 +295,13 @@
handle(badsys, SIGSYS, 0);
handle(disaster, SIGABRT, SIGFPE, SIGILL, SIGSEGV,
SIGBUS, SIGXCPU, SIGXFSZ, 0);
- handle(transition_handler, SIGHUP, SIGINT, SIGTERM, SIGTSTP, 0);
+ handle(transition_handler, SIGHUP, SIGINT, SIGTERM, SIGTSTP,
+
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
While we're on the init topic, is there any strong feeling here about BSD /etc/rc* scripts Vs SysV ? The nice thing about SysV initscripts is the ability to start and stop any service that I like. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: While the -core is busy to review/approve this patch, I would like to know your opinion. What do you think of it? The sysv init should probably be off by default. - bill fumerola - bi...@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfume...@computerhorizons.com - bi...@freebsd.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 07:51:54AM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: While the -core is busy to review/approve this patch, I would like to know your opinion. What do you think of it? The sysv init should probably be off by default. Sure, I turned it on only for test purposes, in case someone wants to try it out. -- Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA of the r...@ucb.crimea.ua United Commercial Bank, r...@freebsd.orgFreeBSD committer, +380.652.247.647Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
Arun Sharma wrote: While we're on the init topic, is there any strong feeling here about BSD /etc/rc* scripts Vs SysV ? The nice thing about SysV initscripts is the ability to start and stop any service that I like. That's fine -- there are lots of ways to start and stop any service you like without involving SysV init. - mark Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82232999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
Mark Newton new...@internode.com.au writes: Arun Sharma wrote: While we're on the init topic, is there any strong feeling here about BSD /etc/rc* scripts Vs SysV ? The nice thing about SysV initscripts is the ability to start and stop any service that I like. That's fine -- there are lots of ways to start and stop any service you like without involving SysV init. Like sending a signal to the process providing the service ? The problem with that approach is, the signal you send and the clean up you do is non-standard for each service and having a standard interface: /etc/rc.d/service stop|start|restart makes it standard. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
Arun Sharma wrote: Mark Newton new...@internode.com.au writes: Arun Sharma wrote: While we're on the init topic, is there any strong feeling here about BSD /etc/rc* scripts Vs SysV ? The nice thing about SysV initscripts is the ability to start and stop any service that I like. That's fine -- there are lots of ways to start and stop any service you like without involving SysV init. Like sending a signal to the process providing the service ? The problem with that approach is, the signal you send and the clean up you do is non-standard for each service and having a standard interface: There are lots of ways to start and stop any service you like without relying on sending a signal to a process and without involving SysV init. This topic has been canvassed so many times by so many people that I can only suggest that you run off to the archives and read about it there. - mark Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82232999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
They SysV way is more elegant and less error prone for bad typist. Graphical tools can be used to interface with these quite easily. It also also easy to automate installations via installation mechanisms. I don't think I agree that it is a bad idea because it is associated with SysV... On 15 Jun 1999, Arun Sharma wrote: Date: 15 Jun 1999 19:54:51 -0700 From: Arun Sharma adsha...@home.com To: Mark Newton new...@internode.com.au Cc: hack...@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature Mark Newton new...@internode.com.au writes: Arun Sharma wrote: While we're on the init topic, is there any strong feeling here about BSD /etc/rc* scripts Vs SysV ? The nice thing about SysV initscripts is the ability to start and stop any service that I like. That's fine -- there are lots of ways to start and stop any service you like without involving SysV init. Like sending a signal to the process providing the service ? The problem with that approach is, the signal you send and the clean up you do is non-standard for each service and having a standard interface: /etc/rc.d/service stop|start|restart makes it standard. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
Wayne Cuddy wrote: They SysV way is more elegant and less error prone for bad typist. ... and has absolutely no way of encoding interdependencies between services (or any concept of a service at all, other than as after-the-fact hacks). What happens to your NFS services when you do /etc/init.d/inetsvc stop; /etc/init.d/inetsvc start on a Sun? What *should* happen on a notebook computer when you start it without its pccard ethernet device plugged in? Should certain network services not be started at all, or should they be delayed until after PPP comes up? Isn't that a question that can only be answered by the individual service? (like, DHCP wouldn't need to start at all when PPP comes up, but your web server might need to be restarted to listen to a new IP address). Graphical tools can be used to interface with these quite easily. ... also true for any other well-designed interface. It also also easy to automate installations via installation mechanisms. Also true for any other well-designed interface. SysV's mechanism is not a well-designed interface. Sure, it has its strengths, and it makes certain tasks easy, but it's not the only answer that has strengths and simplicity. I don't think I agree that it is a bad idea because it is associated with SysV... Neither do I; that issue hasn't been broached in this discussion to date. I think it's a bad idea because it's an intrinsically bad idea. It seems to me that every time this issue comes up people say, We need something better than rc.local/rc.conf for boot-time configuration. SysV has certain attributes we don't have; so let's use SysV! It's like the politician's mantra: SOMETHING must be done! This random solution counts as `something', so let's implement this random solution. Let's not. Several people have given this matter serious thought and have come up with some excellent ideas, some of which have been implmenented as a test platform. Again I'd suggest that anyone interested in following this up consults the archives first, because the last thing we need is to have the mailing lists rehash the same ground *again* less than three months after the last time we rehashed it. [ a note to whoever it is that's replying to this message: you will no doubt delete this text in your reply, because it's stressing that you should CONSULT THE ARCHIVES. have you consulted them? if not, please, please, please exit your editor without saving your response, and consult them. thank you for your cooperation. normal service will resume shortly. ] - mark Mark Newton Email: new...@internode.com.au (W) Network Engineer Email: new...@atdot.dotat.org (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82232999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
adsha...@home.com wrote: Like sending a signal to the process providing the service ? The problem with that approach is, the signal you send and the clean up you do is non-standard for each service and having a standard interface: /etc/rc.d/service stop|start|restart makes it standard. I think we need to use /usr/local/etc/rc.d/service.sh stop|start|restart # Yes, We modify some ports to support start,stop. MIHIRA Sanpei Yoshiro To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: [Call for review] init(8): new feature
pgpnad5Bmmg3c.pgp Description: signed PGP message
