FYI - in the fhs-discuss (Filesystem Hierarchy Standard Discussion)
mailing list, we are in the midst of a discussion about standardizing
boot scripts for Linux. I know some people from the Debian policy
group are already on the mailing list, but I thought I would forward
this message I just sent to the list.
Previous to the below message, we have mostly discussed:
- what everyone is using (Linux and other Unix systems)
- that most everyone thinks this should be standardized, although
nobody pretends that it will be easy to do
------- start of cut text --------------
From: Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux boot script framework
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-From-Line: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 29 22:47:15 1997
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mailbox2.ucsd.edu ([132.239.1.54]) by proton
with esmtp id m0xc39n-000BPuC
(Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from proton (proton.pathname.com [204.145.147.37]) by
mailbox2.ucsd.edu (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id WAA11800 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:41:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by proton
id m0xc34S-000BPLC
(Debian Smail-3.2 1996-Jul-4 #2); Sat, 29 Nov 1997 22:41:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: VM 6.27 under Emacs 19.34.1
Lines: 70
Xref: proton.pathname.com linux.fhs:14
This is a framework for discussing Linux boot script standardization
(followed by some amount of proposal).
In the area of boot scripts, there are de-facto standards followed by
most of the Linux community. Unfortunately, there aren't enough to make
every Linux distribution interoperable in this respect.
There are several important questions:
1. How much can we easily standardize (either because the item is a
de-facto standard or it's easy to do)?
2. How much more must be standardized to make a boot script standard
effective and useful for the Linux community?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) What is easy?
a. System V is the standard boot style for Linux.
Justification: There are two boot schemes: BSD and System V. As far
as I know, only Slackware is still using a BSD scheme, so let's say
System V is the standard for Linux.
b. /etc/inittab:
Runlevel 0 is halt.
Runlevel 1 is single-user.
Runlevels 2-5 are multi-user.
Runlevel 6 is reboot.
c. A directory named "init.d" contains the scripts executed by init
when the runlevel changed. The scripts accept (at least) "start" or
"stop" as a parameter. "init.d" is either located somewhere in /etc
or in /sbin.
d. The init.d scripts are referenced by symbolic links in "rc<digit>.d"
directories. The scripts are named <S|K><two digit><name>, ordered
by the two digit number. (The convention in this area always seems
to be the same, so I won't go into detail.) The "rc<digit>.d"
directories are located somewhere in /etc.
(2) Difficult stuff and questions:
a. Where do we put "init.d" ?
Most common: /etc/init.d, /etc/rc.d/init.d
Also possible: /sbin/init.d.
b. Where do we put "rc<digit>.d" directories?
Most common: /etc/rc.d/rc<digit.d>, /etc/rc<digit.d>.
c. What do runlevels 2-5 signify? (Assume all are multiuser.)
I'll start by proposing these four runlevels:
2 = no networking
3 = networking, no xdm
4 = networking, xdm
5 = site defined, starts similar to 3 or 4
d. How much do we need to standardize the ordering and naming of the
symbolic links as well as the names of init.d scripts?
For example, if we can agree that for networked runlevels, that after
"S49", networking is fully active, it would be better than nothing.
Dan
------- end ----------------------------
