On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:31:18PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Chris Waters wrote:
> > set $(runlevel) # $2 is now current runlevel
> > name=service
> > rcfile=/etc/rc$2.d/S??$name
> > test -f $rcfile && $rcfile restart
> > Simple, cleaner, more elegant, more obvious, less confusing.
> And completely incompatible with file-rc
Ah, hadn't noticed that we have such a beast. I'll leave aside my
personal feelings about such an abomination and agree that it does
break my proposed example. Fortunately, it was just an example.
> we haven't a script to find out whether a daemon is running yet, but
> we should introduce one and fixate this in the policy).
Yes, this would seem to be the only sane approach. (Other than
discarding file-rc and shooting Roland to put him out of his
misery.:-)
> IMHO libc should handle its various incompatibilies itself, because
> its a problem in libc, not in the daemon packages.
Unless you're volunteering to take over maintainence of libc yourself,
I suspect that your opinion will be considered irrelevent. :-)
I almost agree with you, but I think that trying to get libc to track
all the packages that use it is bad software engineering. Throwing
the responsibility back on the packages, even though it's "not their
fault", does make maintenance much simpler.
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
