Is it me, or are the Debian init.d service scripts unfortunately named? If the script names actually aligned with the services they controlled, we could do all kinds of things to make transitioning off of SysV easier, such as:
+ Create a generic template script for starting services that used the script's name as the service name to call. There are some advantages to this, namely we can get a free ride setting up simple services by just creating a symlink to ../.template/run, but this won't work for a number of services because the script name doesn't match the actual executable that is run. Example: smartd vs smartmontools. + We could have individual control over services instead of making "hairballs" that do many things at once. Some services are actually 2 or more programs rolled into one. Samba is a great example - the init.d starts and stops nmbd and smbd together. I know I can write separate run scripts for both services, and then write a "wrapper" script that starts both up as dependencies. But this is an awkward solution to a fixable issue. If the original SysV script didn't have both of the services in there, I wouldn't need to write a special wrapper to provide backward compatibility. + While it's not a problem, it's an annoyance to look at your process tree and think "hm, that name maps to this script...I think..." But if we have one to one mappings, it's instantly clear as to what is what. It's not just Debian that is a culprit here, but I believe some of the Red-Hat-alike distros have the same issue as well. If there are any suggestions beyond what I've listed, I'm all ears: otherwise, it looks like these will be the only way to deal with some of this silliness.
