Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
>
> > Non-centralized configuration is frowned upon. Having to find which file
> > has something, or having to read through multiple files to understand
> > how the system is configured is a disadvantage wrt to the present
> > system.
>
> not so difficult if a command do t
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:
:Daniel C. Sobral writes:
:> Mike Meyer wrote:
:> The multiple levels are there to deal with changes in state. In BSD, for
:> instance, we have single user/multi-user. A number of other variations
:> can exist, both in heavy duty servers where you might want
"Daniel C. Sobral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> >
> > HP-UX :
> >
> > /sbin/init.d/script start_msg|stop_msg|start|stop (FMPOV, there isn't not
> > enough possible choises, such as status, restart, config, command, etc.)
> > /sbin/rc[S0-5].d/[SK][0-9][0-9][0-9]script l
Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
>
> > http://www.freebsd.org/~dfr/devices.html
>
> off topic.
M... I must have copied the wrong link, then...
> > http://www.freebsd.org/~eivind/newrc.html
>
> well. what about a mix of the SystemV approach (ala HP-UX) and the IRIX one
> (using something like chconf
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mikel wrote:
>
> Kelly Yancey wrote:
>
> >
> > How about rather then separate directories, you prefix the symlink names
> > with 'S' for startup scripts and 'K' (for "kill") for shutdown scripts. Then,
> > you rename rc.d to rc3.d...
>
> I like it. It's clean and simple,
Daniel C. Sobral writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> The multiple levels are there to deal with changes in state. In BSD, for
> instance, we have single user/multi-user. A number of other variations
> can exist, both in heavy duty servers where you might want to bring
> certain services down for upgrade
Andrzej Bialecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10 Jul 2000, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
>
> > > and my favorite substitute proposal:
> > >
> > > http://www.roguetrader.com/~brandon/sas/.
> >
> > effectively, the last one is interresting. a major problem w/ this one is the
> > use of "perl" which
On 10 Jul 2000, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
> > and my favorite substitute proposal:
> >
> > http://www.roguetrader.com/~brandon/sas/.
>
> effectively, the last one is interresting. a major problem w/ this one is the
> use of "perl" which is not available a boot time since it is located in /usr.
If
"Daniel C. Sobral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's correct. And yes, not all is bad in SysV. In particular,
> > having a directory where you can find scripts to stop (and restart)
> > subsystems is very nice. I think the multiple levels (rc?.d) is a bit
> > of
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> >
> > > and my favorite substitute proposal:
> > >
> > > http://www.roguetrader.com/~brandon/sas/.
> >
> > I really like the ideas in the last one. The pages were not updated for
> > some time - do you know if the author s
Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>
> > and my favorite substitute proposal:
> >
> > http://www.roguetrader.com/~brandon/sas/.
>
> I really like the ideas in the last one. The pages were not updated for
> some time - do you know if the author still works on it?
No clue. At the time he decided to have a t
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> This has been talked to death. Look at these:
>
> http://www.freebsd.org/~dfr/devices.html
> http://www.freebsd.org/~eivind/newrc.html
>
> and my favorite substitute proposal:
>
> http://www.roguetrader.com/~brandon/sas/.
I really like the ideas
Johan,
I quite agree that in the simple but better approach of rc.conf (BSD). However I like
the idea of a configurable, directory driven approach to the shutdown. I would be
apposed to sysV style rc.d's as I really don't think they provide anything but
confusion. At the ISP where I work the BSD
Mike Meyer wrote:
>
> Yes, that's correct. And yes, not all is bad in SysV. In particular,
> having a directory where you can find scripts to stop (and restart)
> subsystems is very nice. I think the multiple levels (rc?.d) is a bit
> of overkill. Either the system is up (meaning everything is tu
Please Please Please _Dont_!!!
I dont know if someone is yoking, my english is not up to that :(
I tried to secure a Solaris machine and hated the whole setup. I't have
some good things but i take the simple rc.conf mechanism every time!
/Johan
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mikel wrote:
>
>
> Kelly
Kelly Yancey wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:
>
> > > By all means, use start/stop args, but hard link the .sh files into seperate
> > > directories or something so that the order can be tweaked..
> >
> > If all you want is to make sure that shutdown happens in the reverse
> > ord
Cyrille Lefevre writes:
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > # Init: 300. Shutdown: -1. Description: Standard smtp (mail) daemon.
> > (indicating that it should be installed as /etc/init.d/300sendmail.sh,
> > and no shutdown installation is necessary).
> I guess you would like to says that
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > By all means, use start/stop args, but hard link the .sh files into seperate
> > directories or something so that the order can be tweaked..
>
> If all you want is to make sure that shutdown happens in the reverse
> order of startup, that can be done by
On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > By all means, use start/stop args, but hard link the .sh files into seperate
> > directories or something so that the order can be tweaked..
>
> If all you want is to make sure that shutdown happens in the reverse
> order of startup, that can be done by
19 matches
Mail list logo
