Re: Where is "/etc/rc.d/rc.local" on Debian?
On 28 Mar 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.05.9903280206510.3750-100000@jester.vip.net.pl>,
> Marek Habersack <grendel@vip.net.pl> wrote:
> >On 28 Mar 1999, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> >> The guys from the LSB (Linux Base Standard) are currently talking with
> >> Debian and RedHat to agree on one standard /etc/init.d structure. It
> >> will probably be abstracted and have symbolic names and dependencies.
> >Eechh.... yet another standard?? Like it wasn't easier to chose one from the
> >existing ones...
>
> As you know, RedHat, Debian, Suse etc have very different bootup
> procedures. We don't want ISVs to bother with that. So we need a
> system that works across distributions.
Hmm... that's right, but it's only a matter of people talking to each other
and agreeing upon one policy - the dists that don't follow the chosen
standard, can rearrange their layout starting with the next release (yes, I
know, it might be quite difficult, but worth the effort). There's no point in
creating something new instead of using one of the few, very well tested and
proven solutions.
> On debian-devel there has been talk about a better setup with dpkg-like
> dependancies. This is a good thing. You don't have to bother with at
> which priority to place a new service. You can just say "this service
> must be started after networking and name services are available".
That's certainly a good thing.
> The LSB people are seriously looking at a system already created by
> fellow Debian developers which does all this and more.
>
> Normally I don't like changing something that's working either. I
> do not really like things like file-rc. But this is actually something
> that is not an alternative but a superiour solution.
I agree. I used to think that what RH uses to setup the daemon startup order
is good, but file-rc is much better. Well, it's one of those changes that make
your life easier IMO.
marek
Reply to: