David Engel writes: >> >> 3. /etc/rc[0-6].d will move to /etc/rc.d/rc[0-6].d to match the >> >> practice on other Linux systems. Symbolic links will provide >> >> compatibility with the old locations. >> > Is this really necessary ? Real SysV's do things the way we have >> > done. >> >> I can make symbolic links in /etc/rc.d that point back out to where >> the directories are instead of moving the directories. >> I was of the impression that real SysV worked the other way, >> but I can satisfy everyone. > >I agree with Ian. Pleas don't do this. Adding alternative paths to >the same directories will only add clutter and cause confusion. BTW, >I just checked and Solaris uses the same directory structure we >already have. Of course, I don't know if that's good or bad. :-)
All the other Linux distributions are going to /etc/rc.d/* because that's what comes with the svinit package. It works very well; in practice I've found that it's one of the things that I like better about my Red Hat system than my Debian system. Also, as Linux is continually documented, the standard practice will get documented, and that will be one more way that Debian is different from other Linux systems, which I think is not a good idea. Furthermore, one of the reasons that I recommend Debian is the fact that one of the goals of the packaging system is to eventually be able to install packages other than .deb. In particular, this one change would make it nearly painless to add .rpm packages, once they add their dependency system (in a few months). It would *also* make it possible to install .deb packages on a Red Hat system. So I suggest that alternative paths one way or another will be useful. I think that using the same directory structure as other Linux distributions is the best way to do it, but if you can't hack that, then make the /etc/rc.d directory and make the appropriate links in it to /etc/rc?.c and /etc/init.d michaelkjohnson
