[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: coming soon

On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> David Engel writes:
> >> >> 	3. /etc/rc[0-6].d will move to /etc/rc.d/rc[0-6].d to match the
> >> >> 	   practice on other Linux systems. Symbolic links will provide
> >> >> 	   compatibility with the old locations.
> >> > Is this really necessary ?  Real SysV's do things the way we have
> >> > done.
> >> 
> >> I can make symbolic links in /etc/rc.d that point back out to where
> >> the directories are instead of moving the directories.
> >> I was of the impression that real SysV worked the other way,
> >> but I can satisfy everyone.
> >
> >I agree with Ian.  Pleas don't do this.  Adding alternative paths to
> >the same directories will only add clutter and cause confusion.  BTW,
> >I just checked and Solaris uses the same directory structure we
> >already have.  Of course, I don't know if that's good or bad. :-)
> All the other Linux distributions are going to /etc/rc.d/* because
> that's what comes with the svinit package.

Huh?  sysvinit comes with etc/rc.d/rc.* files as well as the 
etc/rc[0-6].d/ structure.  

> It works very well; in
> practice I've found that it's one of the things that I like better
> about my Red Hat system than my Debian system.

Red Hat uses this rc[0-6].d structure below /etc/rc.d/
Debian (and I also just checked SysV) has /etc/rc[0-6].d/
Slackware has /etc/rc.d/rc.* _files_

What do you refer to as works very well, and what is the standard?
OTOH -- some uncluttering of the /etc dir may not bad.

But consider this as a "me too" in company with Ian and David.

Rolf Rossius

Reply to: