Re: Feedback on Ted T'so's initscripts proposal
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000, Jim Kingdon wrote:
> Here's the reaction of one of our sysadmins to the proposal:
>
> Dear god, but that's ungainly. It's entirely too possible that local
> systems administration is going to tinker with and modify the ordering
> of init scripts. That proposal will confuse SA horribly. I'd really
> prefer something more intuitive that doesn't *require* vendor-provided
> tools for manipulating init scripts.
As a sysadmin i do agree complitelly. I had to write my own scripts for
sysV at the times of the old good slackware, and i am keeping till now
those, easy and practical. This was the first initscripts a la sysV
in Linux history, years and years ago. Practical means that i can
manipulate everything by hand or at maximum using a well written
chkconfig.
> Instead he proposes that the dependency of one script on another be
> recorded by creating subdirectories for dependent scripts (suggestion
> enclosed).
As i saw your resume it is interesting, but is somehow unpractical.
lets' suppose that i have /etc/init.d (as it should be!), and than
/etc/rc3d/network.d/nfs.d/ (as would be logical using
original sysV) or /etc/rc.d/rc3d/network.d/nfs.d/ (as it is more
elegant in many linux distributions) i would
have too many links. To manage everything by hand would be noisy.
And why should i be forced to use some special script to set up my links?
> Stepping back: trying to engineer a new mechanism in a standards
> committee makes me nervous (as we have generally been taught that this
> is a Bad Idea - witness pthreads). Just what problem are we trying to
> solve here? If it is a question of not having to standardize
> runlevels ("precisely what does runlevel 2 mean?" &c) I'm not sure
> that the existing text at
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/spec/x6663.html is inadequate.
Infact we should not make thinks more and more complex, but easy.
That is why i know a lot of hight skilled sysadmins who love
Slackware easy approach in BSD style, and many of them come from
an Irix background, and they would prefer a systemV style, but not
too "arzigoggolato" and with some sobriety.
Maybe it is just my italian sense of elegance...
Luigi Genoni
Reply to: