Re: Proposal: A config file for runlevels (DRAFT)
On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > There are other examples (like "/etc/passwd") which show that it can work
> > to rely on one single file.
>
> I've known /etc/passwd to get mangled by programs as well...
By using "adduser" or by messing around with it using own procedures?
> > Could you give a summary of traps in which the /usr/info/dir file failed?
>
> An error in the program that updates things, or in the file that
> it edits. Both of these _will_ happen.
An error in the program that updates rc-links could also mess up things.
An error in "runlevel.conf" only affects one line and is equivalent to
setting a link wrong. So I see both not as strong arguments.
> A solution that installs a file (named after the package) in a dedicated
> directory is much more difficult to get wrong.
Basically a directory is just a file that contains the name of other
files. Because the links in /etc/rc?.d contain no information themselves,
there is no real difference between my runlevel.conf and the old and
established setup via links (only the tools to deal with directory
contents are somewhat more established ... your prognosis above means:
there will happen to be an error in "cp" -> so not use it? ] :-)
> /etc/rc*.d is awkward to edit, and a tool for doing so would be a
> better idea than replacing the current system with something less
> robust.
You mean, something which is awkward to edit _must_ be robust? :-)
Yes, it's that difficult that the average sysadmin does not dare to deal
with it and so no problems can occur. :-)
Serious: something difficult to understand is more likely to be messed up
than a simple scheme. No, I really don't see the "robustness" of links.
-Winfried
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: