> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 02:23:31 EST
> From: Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU>

> > What do people think about an /etc/init.d/ file, either with or
> > without run levels?  I think run levels are mostly useless, but
> > others will certainly disagree.  I would consider writing an
> > /etc/init.d startup method if there was interest.  I really think
> > the /etc/rc.local method is just plain archaic, and each package
> > SHOULD have its own startup/shutdown script.

> Actually, I'd argue for a more radical step in the opposite direction.
> I think /etc should only contain configuration files, and that means
> few or no shell scripts.  A lot of what shows up in /etc is not
> intended to be modified for specific machines (witness /etc/rc.local
> vs. /etc/rc), needs to be updated for new operating system revisions,
> etc..

So, maybe /etc has become a sort of "catch all" place (with scripts and
various configuration files).  What's the harm in that?

> It evades me why people in the System V world decided that each
> package should have its own startup/shutdown script in /etc.

The main reason for that structure is to allow third-party
packages to be installed or removed without editing rc stuff.
For example, Solaris pkg_add can just create files in /etc/*

> Why does all that hair belong in /etc, instead of in the executables
> for the packages themselves?

For many third-party packages, there is something that needs to run
when the system boots, or shuts down, or (ick) at run level change.
It is very conveinent for the third-party software vendors to have a
standardized way for their package get installed, including changes
to the boot-time or halt-time control files.

Of course, this is pretty much moot for NetBSD at the moment because
there do not appear to be any third-party software vendors trying to
package products for automated installation.