Re: Strang shutdown mechanism with Debian
miquels@cistron.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
> In article <[🔎] 19980517090530.A10783@kuolema.Infodrom.North.DE>,
> Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.north.de> wrote:
> >This is not a clean method. I'm dissappointed.
>
> Yes, well if you write a system from scratch you can do it cleanly. For
> now we had to work whatever was available and would break too much.
?? I just noticed this behavior in /etc/init.d/rc .
Miquel, having a magical, different meaning of SXX scripts for run
levels 0 and 6 is not just being unclean, it's making up a new level
of uncleanness a rather antiquated and creaky but generally
well-respected and working system (the SysV Init scheme).
> >For me it would make more sense moving the S*scripts that
> >need to be called with "stop" to K92..K98. I don't see that
> >Knn is "full".
>
> And what if you want to insert a new script somewhere in between? That
> would not be possible anymore. The Kxx and Sxx entries need to be sparse
> so that you can move things around and insert new links "in between".
Why not just add a third digit? Scripts should be run in ASCII order.
I realize that right now you'd have to modify /etc/init.d/rc to deal
with arbitrary runlevel specifiers and possibly also other scripts
(update-rc.d) would have to be hacked.
Still, the alternate meaning for 'S[0-9][0-9]$suffix' in run levels 6
and 0 seems very confusing. If you really did have to add a new
letter for these run levels, why not a letter not already used, like
'L'?
--
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: