On Mar 16, 10:18pm, Jonathan Stone wrote:
} 
} Personally, I can live with fat granularity much, much better than I

     The only difference between /etc/rc and /etc/init.d is the amount
of granularity.  Neither system is satisfactory.

} can deal with /etc/rc.conf.  rc.conf is inherently unmaintainable.

     I disagree.

} You install a machine, you set up rc.conf for your local settings, and
} then when a new release (or snapshot) comes out it changes the syntax,
} changes the names, or simply adds a whole bunch more options.

     diff and patch work wonders here.  As I've said I've had to
change the files in /etc/init.d many times.  This means that at
upgrade time I lose.  Not to mention the upgrade restoring symbolic
links in /etc/rc?.d that I've renamed/deleted.  From an upgrade point
of view, there really is no advantage to /etc/init.d.

} Result: if you upgrade, you have to re-do all the local configuration
} in /etc/rc.conf from scratch.

     I'm not sure this is true, but even if it is, so what?  It's a
lot easier to deal with one file, then it is to deal with 20+.

} IMHO a `clean' solution to this problem means either separate files,
} or a way to robustly mark `stanzas', to slurp out a given (modified)
} stanza from an old rc.conf, and drop the modified stanza in as a
} replacement for the same `stanza' in a updated rc.conf from a newer
} distribution (while leaving other stanzas unmodified)....

     An automated tool to help upgrade rc.conf would be nice, but I'm
not going to consider the lack of one to be a major flaw.

}-- End of excerpt from Jonathan Stone