On Sat, 16 Dec 1995, Michael K. Johnson wrote: > > 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.
Huh? sysvinit comes with etc/rc.d/rc.* files as well as the etc/rc[0-6].d/ structure. > 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. Red Hat uses this rc[0-6].d structure below /etc/rc.d/ Debian (and I also just checked SysV) has /etc/rc[0-6].d/ Slackware has /etc/rc.d/rc.* _files_ What do you refer to as works very well, and what is the standard? OTOH -- some uncluttering of the /etc dir may not bad. But consider this as a "me too" in company with Ian and David. mfg Rolf Rossius
