Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
> Run levels or run states?
>
> It would be damned useful, for every embedded system I've
> ever used FreeBSD for (four now, but who's counting?) to
> be able to say:
>
> o Start _all_ the standard FreeBSD stuff, I'm using
> this thing as my developement workstation.
>
> o Start _only_ the FreeBSD stuff I'm going to be
> shipping, so that I know what will and won't be
> in the target environment actually works.
>
> o Start the FreeBSD stuff I'm going to be shipping,
> _and_ start the locally developemed stuff I'm
> going to be shipping, since I'm either shipping
> or doing a full regression test.
The ability to specify a different boot configuration isn't quite the
same as the question of using a NetBSD rc system or not. To use a
SysV-like system to specify boot configuration requires that
subsystems startup/shutdown be in different files, which means you
have to have something like the NetBSD rc system. I get the impression
nobody likes the SysV configuration specification methods.
Since modern BSD-like systems use /etc/rc.conf extending that would
probably be more acceptable. As a user, I'd like to have multiple
rc.conf files. For Terry's example, something like /etc/rc.conf,
/etc/rc.conf.ship, and /etc/rc.conf.test would be nice. Having to use
SysV-like characters might be either better, or required by the boot
system. Tweaking source_rc_confs to support either one looks trivial.
That just leaves figuring out how the user specifies the run-state,
and how that information gets somewhere that it can be used by
source_rc_confs. But that's just a SMOP.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
