Bryan Kadzban wrote: > DJ Lucas wrote: >> * the path for the setclock script in 55-lfs.rules needs to be >> changed > > So... yeah. > > Why was this whole tree moved in the LSB scripts, again? :-) > > I really really hate systems where I can't reasonably tab-complete > the bootscript filenames. And there's way too much junk in /etc > whose name collides with init.d for me to enjoy using a system that > puts the init.d directory directly in /etc. I *very* much prefer the > existing bootscript setup, where all of the scripts and whatnot are > sequestered under /etc/rc.d instead. (Mostly because that can be tab > completed after about 2 characters, and anything else under it in > either 1, or 3.) > > And of course, symlinks don't help, because symlinks (for the > individual runlevel directories) collide with the rc.d name. > > What requires these specific paths?
Still curious on this. From the LSB link provided earlier, it *sounds* like the requirement is that packages can put scripts into /etc/init.d/* and then run install-initd, to get them turned on. That can be done pretty easily with the scripts in /etc/rc.d/init.d and a single symlink named /etc/init.d pointing into the rc.d tree (no need for the rc?.d links or directories to be directly in /etc). Which is what I plan on doing on all of my systems anyway (except without the link, since I don't care much about this kind of LSB setup) -- but why not keep the tab completion, which is an IMO-extremely-nice property of the current script setup?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
