Re: init.d, rc0.d, ... rc6.d
at some point around 12 Jan 1998 07:57:06 -0600
> Sen Nagata writes:
> > what kind of advantages does this kind of approach have compared to
> > having a single file for each run level (or even one file for all
> > runlevels) describing which scripts to run (as well as the order to run
> > them in)?
> The present system is safer and easier to automate. If you screw up
> editing the single file you may cause everything in the file to fail:
that's true. in general this is the case if, for a given program (or a
set of programs being managed by a single configuration file), one edits
'the-currently-used' configuration file directly, right?
if one were to edit a copy of a configuration file (a 'candidate
configuration file') and then perform renaming of files (i think qmail
uses a similar technique for reliability), that's safer right? it seems
like this kind of feature could be built into editors (or added as an
extension) -- so you specify which configuration file you'd like to
update, the editor creates another file which you edit first, and then
the editor performs the 'reliable' updating for you. anyway...i didn't
want to make a point about editors, just a point about the process of
altering configuration files. wouldn't it make sense to have something
that provides more reliable/safe altering of configuration files
(perhaps incorporating a mechanism similar to what is suggested above)?
> you may not even be able to boot.
point well-taken :-)
> The present system just requires that you create some links.
> That is easy to do with a script, and if it fails only the service being
> added is affected.
is there already some administrative command one can use to easily
enable/disable a service? i know it is possible to write scripts to do
this for various services...but perhaps there is already some existing
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .