On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 22:21 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Leszek Matok (Lam@xxxxxx) said:
> > Dnia 10-02-2005, czw o godzinie 17:20 -0500, Bill Nottingham napisaÅ(a):
> > > Thinking about it some more, I don't see *that* much need for modularizing
> > > rc.sysinit;
> > > As stated before, I don't see the need for the 'boot' prefix.
> > Think about uptimed. It needs to create unique boot id upon every boot.
> > Then it can be started and stopped many times using service uptimed
> > stop/start, changing runlevels (upon bootup, too), playing with kill
> > etc.
>
> When I speak about modularization above, I mean I don't see reason
> for splitting much of the *current* rc.sysinit to separate scripts;
> what I'd suspect is that we'd have the current rc.sysinit do
> the normal stuff (drivers, fsck, remount r/w) and then run all
> the scripts in rcS.d.
In the past, I found myself in some situations where I would have loved
to do things before or after a certain stage in rc.sysinit. How things
were, I had to change the file itself which either made me retrofit
these changes to a new rc.sysinit or lead to surprises when updating
initscripts. Granted, given a completely standard installation splitting
up rc.sysinit doesn't gain anything but as soon as you want to extend
things beyond the normal state of affairs, having it the proposed way
would make it very easy.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
