On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 02:57:22AM +0000, Scott Aaron Bamford wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2000, Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> 
> > <aidan@kublai.com> (Aidan Cully) writes:
> > 
> > > I hope this isn't too controversial...  We've got rc.local.conf,
> > > monthly.local, &c., why not rc.d.local?
> > 
> > What's wrong with just putting local files in /etc/rc.d itself? While
> > the system-supplied files in /etc/rc.d might reasonably considered
> > system-owned code rather than user-tweakable configuration, the
> > contents of /etc/rc.d are fully adjustable by the sysadmin.
> 
> i quite like to seperate what is mine, and what is the systems. What if,
> say ssh (openssh) became intergrated with the core system, and was added
> to /etc/rc.d. Yes make build will not override it, but i think the point
> is that things under /etc/rc.d i would know had been configured pretty
> well by the system (may need tweeking but...) while everything under
> /etc/rc.d.local/ was under my control. So i dont come back in 6 months
> after the system has been upgraded and wounder just which files were under
> my control again...

"What he said."  I think that if an admin wants to create his own rc.d
scripts, he'll want to have an easy way to identify which scripts are
his own, and which came with the system (or pkgsrc, or whatever).  It
should only help if NetBSD provided an easy way to do that.

--aidan