> There are many discussion aboud having NetBSD style rc.d. However, I
> think it takes for a period of time.
> Once, I wish to commit my changes to be in time for 4.2-RELEASE.
I think people were talking only about -current here anyway.
A NetBSD style rc.d is certainly not planned for -stable.
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 18:38:33 -0700
> Jordan Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
jkh> Sounds good to me. My comments were, just to make it clear again,
jkh> just food for thought and not out-and-out objections. If even 47 more
jkh> files in /etc is what it takes to get IPv6 fully support
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 15:17 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> Gerhard Sittig writes:
> > What's new is:
> > - include the general config at the start (and yes, in every
> > single script -- but this should be neglectable in terms of
> > speed penalty and makes them work separately, too -- which is
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Nik Clayton writes:
: On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:56:07PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
: > [redirected to just -current; I'm not sure what this has to do with -net]
: >
: > > I agree. I've been using them for a while on my dog slow Windows CE
: > > machine. There w
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:56:07PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> [redirected to just -current; I'm not sure what this has to do with -net]
>
> > I agree. I've been using them for a while on my dog slow Windows CE
> > machine. There were some minor issues when they were first committed
> > to N
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 06:04:43AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:23:40PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > Why can't I simply write kill -1 `cat /var/run/sendmail.pid`?
> >
> > What about deamons that don't understa
> >> (i.e., a topological sort). Does `rcorder' call `tsort' or does it
> >> reinvent the wheel?
>
> > UTSL
>
> You could have simply answered the question. For the benefit of
> everyone else: yes, it reinvents the wheel.
I personally don't have a problem with this; tsort should be
a library
> I was going to if no one else did.
>
> Who ever does it should coordinate with Luke M @ NetBSD. He is willing
> to make tweaks such that we could use as much of the NetBSD bits as
> possible. He really hopes we [BSD] can standardize on this interface.
Well, it sounds like David is already wo
Grrr !@#%$^ Reply-To: header
< said:
>> (i.e., a topological sort). Does `rcorder' call `tsort' or does it
>> reinvent the wheel?
> UTSL
You could have simply answered the question. For the benefit of
everyone else: yes, it reinvents the wheel.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mai
Gerhard Sittig writes:
> What's new is:
> - include the general config at the start (and yes, in every
> single script -- but this should be neglectable in terms of
> speed penalty and makes them work separately, too -- which is a
> real big gain!)
This isn't really new; it's been nagging m
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 04:04:13PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> Hmmm. We already have a program (called `tsort') which does this
> (i.e., a topological sort). Does `rcorder' call `tsort' or does it
> reinvent the wheel?
UTSL
lynx ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-current/src/sbin/rcorder/
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 09:42:23AM +0200, Andrea Campi wrote:
> Maybe we could have a script to do the dependency check and "compile"
> everything in a single big file?
Luke already has this support in NetBSD 1.5 for those who demand it, but
its a secret. ;-)
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Grrr !@#$^& Reply-To:...
< said:
> Nope. All the /etc/rc.d/ files are scanned by `rcorder'. `rcorder' then
> creates a dependacy graph from information in each /etc/rc.d/ file. A
> walk of the graph is done to output the list of scripts in the order they
> should run in.
Hmmm. We alread
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:58:08PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> With the NetBSD stuff, this is not immediately obvious though I guess
> one could have a top level rc file with an explicit ordering similar to
> our various subdir Makefiles,
Nope. All the /etc/rc.d/ files are scanned by `rcorder
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 08:14:01PM +0200, Gerhard Sittig wrote:
> but I don't see FreeBSD having this level of "rc lib" as NetBSD
> has in rc.subr
We would import the NetBSD rc.subr.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [E
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:56:07PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> So, who wants to do a proof-of-concept implementation for -current
> which integrates with our existing rc.conf mechanism?
I was going to if no one else did.
Who ever does it should coordinate with Luke M @ NetBSD. He is willing
Gerhard Sittig writes:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 06:04 +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Though I see your point, actually, many UNIX books, including
> > some pretty old ones, refer to sending HUP signal as standard
> > way of restarting/resetting daemons.
> Please tell the software authors abou
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 14:56 -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
>
> > [ ... NetBSD (or Linux?) like rc scripts ... ]
>
> So, who wants to do a proof-of-concept implementation for
> -current which integrates with our existing rc.conf mechanism?
> In order to obey POLA, we should at least have the sepa
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 06:04 +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:23:40PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > > Why can't I simply write kill -1 `cat
> > > /var/run/sendmail.pid`?
> >
> > What about deamons that don't underst
> This was my thought also. I put the TCP/IP scripts at 99 to make
> sure that any slow network initialization is done.
>
> Since they all start with S - for example S99tcp - moving it
> to s99tcp will keep it from starting, and the Knn in the same
> directory is used to stop things when moving
2 ;-)
Bye,
Andrea
> -Original Message-
> From: David O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 10:27 PM
> To: Warner Losh
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: new rc.network6 and rc.firewall6
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 12
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 11:04:55PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> One should have some other script that you could run, which
> would look thru all the rc files and just list which order
> they will be run at startup (or at shutdown). That way you
> could find out the order for a given set of
At 2:58 PM -0700 10/24/00, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > The scripts themselves have the ordering dependencies. The
> > startup system runs them in the proper order. I don't know
> > if this is pre-computed or redone each boot.
>
>I'm really curious about this, myself. One of the reasons the SYSV
>
> I'm in the midst of trying to install NetBSD so I can look at this. If
> no one else steps forward to do it, I can put together a patch.
I've had several replies, so why don't we all look into this a bit and
see which one of us actually manages to have enough steam to do it
after the analysis p
> and, to reply a second time to this message, it is recomputed at each
> boot... the rc and rc.shutdown scripts both run rcorder to do it, with
> rc.shutdown reversing the order.
Ah, OK, sorry - I must have missed this the first time around.
I'll have to investigate the workings of rcorder then
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:23:40PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Why can't I simply write kill -1 `cat /var/run/sendmail.pid`?
>
> What about deamons that don't understand `kill -HUP'? Sendmail didn't
> until very reciently. ``/etc/rc.d/some-dea
>So, who wants to do a proof-of-concept implementation for -current
>which integrates with our existing rc.conf mechanism? In order to
>obey POLA, we should at least have the separate scripts switch off the
>same knobs whenever possible.
>
>It's something I'd be willing to do, I guess. I have s
Jordan Hubbard writes:
> [redirected to just -current; I'm not sure what this has to do with -net]
> > I agree. I've been using them for a while on my dog slow Windows CE
> > machine. There were some minor issues when they were first committed
> > to NetBSD on some platforms (due to a too early
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:58:08PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard thus spoke:
> > The scripts themselves have the ordering dependencies. The startup
> > system runs them in the proper order. I don't know if this is
> > pre-computed or redone each boot.
> I'm really curious about this, myself. One of t
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:58:08PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > The scripts themselves have the ordering dependencies. The startup
> > system runs them in the proper order. I don't know if this is
> > pre-computed or redone each boot.
>
> I'm really curious about this, myself. One of the r
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 02:58:08PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > The scripts themselves have the ordering dependencies. The startup
> > system runs them in the proper order. I don't know if this is
> > pre-computed or redone each boot.
>
> I'm really curious about this, myself. One of the r
> The scripts themselves have the ordering dependencies. The startup
> system runs them in the proper order. I don't know if this is
> pre-computed or redone each boot.
I'm really curious about this, myself. One of the reasons the SYSV
scripts have the numeric prefix is so that you know exactl
[redirected to just -current; I'm not sure what this has to do with -net]
> I agree. I've been using them for a while on my dog slow Windows CE
> machine. There were some minor issues when they were first committed
> to NetBSD on some platforms (due to a too early use of ps and some
> brokeness
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 12:31:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> The scripts themselves have the ordering dependencies. The startup
> system runs them in the proper order. I don't know if this is
> pre-computed or redone each boot.
Redone on each boot up (and shutdown).
--
-- David ([EMAIL PRO
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:23:40PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> Why can't I simply write kill -1 `cat /var/run/sendmail.pid`?
What about deamons that don't understand `kill -HUP'? Sendmail didn't
until very reciently. ``/etc/rc.d/some-deamon restart'' does the right
thing reguardless how in
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:21:39PM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote:
> There isn't any reason why rc.conf shouldn't continue to be useful in
> either case.
/etc/rc.conf and /etc/defaults/rc.conf are still used in the NetBSD 1.5
world.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU is Not Unix / Li
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:49:40AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> Having dozens of small files instead of pair of big ones always
> frustrates me when I have to work with linux.
Maybe, but the greatly increased functionality makes it worth it.
--
-- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GNU i
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:05:49AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> Still, it would be better if I could choose between "classical" and "new"
> startup layout, say, somewhere at the installation stage.
Supporting two very different schemes is a support nightmare. And
giveing good test coverage w
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 16:14 +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > > Well, would not be this stepping aside from BSD startup
> > > sequence, which we all know and love? Having dozens of
> > > small files instead of pair of big ones always frustrates
>
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jacques A. Vidrine" writes:
: By the way, the author of this stuff (Luke Mewburn) says he'll post a
: summary of the design and implementation issues to this list in a few
: days.
I talked to Luke at BSDcon about many issues. He's very keen on
increasing the coope
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Matthew N. Dodd"
writes:
: On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
: > Well if you're that stubborn there's no reason that the "new" layout
: > could not be compiled into a monolithic script. In fact perhaps you
: > could be the one to step forward and wr
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bill Vermillion writes:
: One of the reasons for the numbers in the SysVR4 arena is to
: set the order of execution so programs which other depend upon
: are executed first. How does the NetBSD solve this problem.
The scripts themselves have the ordering dependenci
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "David O'Brien" writes:
: At BSDcon Luke M showed me what the NetBSD 1.5 rc files look like.
: They've moved them all to /etc/rc.d/ and made them very granular (as
: SVR4, but w/o leading numbers in the filenames). The NetBSD
: implementation also solved all the iss
/me hands Chris and
DocWilco
At 13:50 24-10-2000 -0400, you wrote:
>The solution is very simple. Put a statically linked Perl in /sbin,
>and write the startup system in Perl. For user convenience, it should
>have a Gnome interface and a PostgreSQL backend, so we should also
>put X a
The solution is very simple. Put a statically linked Perl in /sbin,
and write the startup system in Perl. For user convenience, it should
have a Gnome interface and a PostgreSQL backend, so we should also
put X and pgsql in /sbin.
--
Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonge
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 08:59:36AM +, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Oh... and the PROVIDE/REQUIRE/WANT lists really, really want to
> be "per service name" rather than per program name, so I could,
> for example, have a service that depends on "smtpserv", and not
> care if it was sendmail or qmail or
Alexey Dokuchaev writes:
> > Well, we *already* have over a dozen /etc/rc.* files on -current. And
> > we *don't* have the advantage of a consistent interface to control all
> > the functions in /etc/rc. If you break things up, then if you need to
> > restart the mail server, just go "/etc/rc.d/s
> Well, we *already* have over a dozen /etc/rc.* files on -current. And
> we *don't* have the advantage of a consistent interface to control all
> the functions in /etc/rc. If you break things up, then if you need to
> restart the mail server, just go "/etc/rc.d/sendmail restart". dhcpd?
> "/etc/
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Well, would not be this stepping aside from BSD startup sequence, which we
> > all know and love? Having dozens of small files instead of pair of
> > big ones always frustrates me when I have to work with linux.
>
> Install a binary package that nee
> Well, would not be this stepping aside from BSD startup sequence, which we
> all know and love? Having dozens of small files instead of pair of
> big ones always frustrates me when I have to work with linux.
Install a binary package that needs to be started when the
system is booted and needs
> I like the concept of them quite a bit. I think it definitely shows
> some thought on how to keep the advantages of each system. I would
> support a move toward a system like this. One thing that would be nice
> is a database somewhere of which of services from /etc/rc.d are running.
I think
> > One of the reasons for the numbers in the SysVR4 arena is to
> > set the order of execution so programs which other depend upon
> > are executed first. How does the NetBSD solve this problem.
>
> Very coolly. The main rc script runs a script named `rcorder' to
> generate the proper order.
Garrett Rooney writes:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:49:40AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Well, would not be this stepping aside from BSD startup sequence, which we
> > all know and love? Having dozens of small files instead of pair of
> > big ones always frustrates me when I have to work wi
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:25:40PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:07:42PM -0400, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> > Hmm I don't have any NetBSD machines running the later 1.5 revisions
> > yet, so I've not seen the new scripts,
>
> lynx ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-curre
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> Well if you're that stubborn there's no reason that the "new" layout
> could not be compiled into a monolithic script. In fact perhaps you
> could be the one to step forward and write the code to compile that
> script. ;-)
Indeed, given the slo
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Garrett Rooney wrote:
>> That's an idea! Gotta co recent -CURRENT right now!
>
>might want to port the netbsd code first, since AFAIK this stuff isn't
>in current ;-)
Indeed it's not, but nice to seem him so eager. =)
--
Brandon D. Valentine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Few thin
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:26:07AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >
> > >Still, it would be better if I could choose between "classical" and "new"
> > >startup layout, say, somewhere at the in
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>
> >Still, it would be better if I could choose between "classical" and "new"
> >startup layout, say, somewhere at the installation stage.
>
> Well if you're that stubborn there's no reason that the
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>Still, it would be better if I could choose between "classical" and "new"
>startup layout, say, somewhere at the installation stage.
Well if you're that stubborn there's no reason that the "new" layout
could not be compiled into a monolithic script.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:49:40AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > Well, would not be this stepping aside from BSD startup sequence, which we
> > all know and love? Having dozens of small files instead of pair of
> > big ones always frustrates me w
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 04:49:40AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> Well, would not be this stepping aside from BSD startup sequence, which we
> all know and love? Having dozens of small files instead of pair of
> big ones always frustrates me when I have to work with linux.
well, it's a single
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:05:37AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > > I wish to update rc.network6 and introduce rc.firewall6.
> >
> > H. I must confess that I see /etc as getting rather cluttered
> > these days. Is there no way to perhaps collap
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 02:25:40PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:07:42PM -0400, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> > Hmm I don't have any NetBSD machines running the later 1.5 revisions
> > yet, so I've not seen the new scripts,
>
> lynx ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-curre
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:07:42PM -0400, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
>> Hmm I don't have any NetBSD machines running the later 1.5 revisions
>> yet, so I've not seen the new scripts,
>
>lynx ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-current/src/etc/rc.d/
Thanks,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:07:42PM -0400, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> Hmm I don't have any NetBSD machines running the later 1.5 revisions
> yet, so I've not seen the new scripts,
lynx ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-current/src/etc/rc.d/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:07:42PM -0400, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Brian O'Shea wrote:
>
> >Sounds interesting. To add a new rc script to the system, do you have
> >to add an entry to an "rc order list" somewhere (in addition to adding
> >the new script)? How is that h
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Brian O'Shea wrote:
>Sounds interesting. To add a new rc script to the system, do you have
>to add an entry to an "rc order list" somewhere (in addition to adding
>the new script)? How is that handled? The nice (or clumsy, depending
>on your point of view) part about the S
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 01:05:27AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 09:41:51PM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> > One of the reasons for the numbers in the SysVR4 arena is to
> > set the order of execution so programs which other depend upon
> > are executed first. How does th
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 09:41:51PM -0400, Bill Vermillion wrote:
> One of the reasons for the numbers in the SysVR4 arena is to
> set the order of execution so programs which other depend upon
> are executed first. How does the NetBSD solve this problem.
Very coolly. The main rc script runs a s
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 03:39:57PM -0700, David O'Brien thus spoke:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:05:37AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > > I wish to update rc.network6 and introduce rc.firewall6.
> > H. I must confess that I see /etc as getting rather cluttered
> > these days. Is there no
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:05:37AM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > I wish to update rc.network6 and introduce rc.firewall6.
>
> H. I must confess that I see /etc as getting rather cluttered
> these days. Is there no way to perhaps collapse some of the most
> related functionality into sing
> However, Umemoto-san and me will discuss this, since we [he mostly] have
> been working on this for the last few months.
Sounds good to me. My comments were, just to make it clear again,
just food for thought and not out-and-out objections. If even 47 more
files in /etc is what it takes to ge
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
>
> -On [20001021 20:10], Jordan Hubbard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> I wish to update rc.network6 and introduce rc.firewall6.
> >
> >H. I must confess that I see /etc as getting rather cluttered
> >these days. Is there no way to perhaps collapse some
-On [20001021 20:10], Jordan Hubbard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I wish to update rc.network6 and introduce rc.firewall6.
>
>H. I must confess that I see /etc as getting rather cluttered
>these days. Is there no way to perhaps collapse some of the most
>related functionality into single fi
> I wish to update rc.network6 and introduce rc.firewall6.
H. I must confess that I see /etc as getting rather cluttered
these days. Is there no way to perhaps collapse some of the most
related functionality into single files and start passing arguments
or something? Just a comment..
- Jo
75 matches
Mail list logo
