On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 07:20:31PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > I dislike the rc.d anywhere in the name on general aestetic principles, > but Chris's arguments about the update- prefix are persuasive to me. I'd > much rather see the "rc.d" name dropped where possible for "init", so > we'd have invoke-init, update-init and so on.
I second this. Moreover, I think it's a good idea because we want to standardize around one set of tools for Debian packages (and even users) to invoke when they need to interact with the init system in this fashion, and we shouldn't really care about whether the underlying init system uses file rcs or rc directories or whatever. If we think ahead just a little, then we won't have scripts named a certain way for "historical reasons" which may not apply when someone has swapped out System V init for something else, perhaps based on a very different technology. The important thing is the functionality. I'm neutral on the issue of whether the verb or noun should come first. * On the one hand, having the noun first nicely groups related system functions together, and may be more helpful to people using tab completion. * On the other hand, there's a fair about of Debian inertia in the other direction. update-this, update-that, update-foo, update-bar. I myself have contributed to his inertia, unfortunately. (update-fonts-alias et al.) I prefer the former, but if people are going to have a hissy fit about it, then I can abandon that. My preference for "update-init" over "update-rc.d" is much greater than my preference for "init-update" over "update-init". -- G. Branden Robinson | To Republicans, limited government Debian GNU/Linux | means not assisting people they [EMAIL PROTECTED] | would sooner see shoveled into mass http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn
pgpVPRNm6yp67.pgp
Description: PGP signature
