On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 19:59, Thomas Hood wrote: > Oliver Kurth wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 15:16, Chris Hanson wrote: > > > Thomas Hood has been working on an alternative system, in which the > > > event sequencing is controlled by statements inside the scripts. > > > This promises to simplify things in the long run. > > > > Why? > > The alternative system to which Chris referred uses priority > declarations instead of sequence numbers to determine execution > order. The declarations can either be in the scripts themselves > or in external files or both. Scripts that are not prioritized > relative to one another are run simultaneously. > > It is possible to design the system so that the priorities depend > on how the script is executed -- i.e., with which arguments. > E.g., it is possible to make A follow B on suspend but precede it > on resume. Such a system eliminates the need for the symlink > farms that one finds in the current apmd package. Hm. To run them simultanuously, one could give them the same order number, eg. 40-foo would be run at the same time as 40-bar (of course, run-parts would have to changed for that). And I am not convinced that it is really worth it. For another order, one could execute them in reverse order (--reverse for run-parts), or use the sym link farm, which is okay for me. I do not adhore sym links, at least not if they follow an easy to understand scheme, which is the case here. This works for the init.d scripts, why not in other script.d directories? As I wrote in my original mail, I do not want to look into every single file to see in which order they are executed. And if the information is in an external file, this can be just another script, no need for run-parts then. And it would be even more flexible... I do not want to stop your creativity, but I do not like overcomplicating simple things. Greetings, Oliver
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part