Re: [RFC] *-rc.d -> rc.d-* transition
On Sun, 08 Sep 2002, Chris Waters wrote:
> First, I'd like to say that I'm fairly neutral in this debate. None
So am I, actually. I am proposing it because I said at debconf2 that I
would, after the people there got convinced it would be a good thing by
whomever proposed it.
> > 1. Since we'll be adding more programs to update-rc.d, we should have fixed
> > that in the first place (I replied "too late" to the guy when I heard
> > this argument :-) )
>
> That's not an an argument, since it's based on the _conclusion_ that
> we should change the name. Indeed, IF we decide to change the name,
The argument that "invoke-rc.d" is "stupid", why not "rc.d-invoke" was made
before the person knew it was already deployed...
> we should probably try to do it sooner rather than later for this
> reason, but that begs the question: should we try to change the name?
Ideed. Should we? I am certainly not touching invoke-rc.d and policy-rc.d
if update-rc.d is not going to change.
> > 3. Clean namespace and proper grouping of related utilities. rc.d-{update,
> > invoke, policy}, especially when the upcoming (when they're ready)
> > init.d-* scripts (for parallel execution and dependency processing in
> > init scripts) are taken into account.
>
> I don't understand why "rc.d-*" is any "cleaner" of a namespace than
> "*-rc.d". I think this argument is mere noise.
Something about it making the group obvious, I think. There was also
something about verb-noun and noun-verb groupings and common usage, but I
don't recall that one well :-(
> but then i haven't seen any strong reasons to make the change.
Nor did I. And I still am not really hot on it, either, as you can see.
> The first reason for not making the change is that it is currently
> consistent with other, similar update-<foo> utilities. Changing it
Now, that is a good reason not to change it. Unfortunately, the fact that
now we have a bunch of *-rc.d and will have a bunch of init.d-* utilities
could be used to make the same argument.
> Against these weak reasons we have, what? The idea that a ".d" suffix
> should indicate a directory? Well, most directories do NOT have a
That one is pretty weak alright :-)
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: