>>> Oh and yes rc*.conf should die.
>> I totally disagree.  I like rc.conf.  It keeps as much information
>> in one place as possible, which [is good]
> It's also a giant PITA for package management, etc.

Which indicates that we really need something that allows the admin to
pick which way the system should go - for some, automated ease will be
more important than human ease; for others, the other way around.

> I'm a little annoyed that the current rc.d stuff went in.  It's
> almost like Luke simply chose to ignore all feedback he received on
> it.

I'm pretty annoyed too.  I saw no clear consensus either way on it,
which says very clearly to me that it is not sufficiently thought out
yet to be a Right Thing.  (What we have, er, had, might not be a Right
Thing either, but given a choice between two wrong things with no clear
reason to choose otherwise, I'd say stick with what we have.  Then at
least we don't compound wrong-thing-ness with gratuitous change.)

Not to mention that rc.d will seriously screw me, as a sysadmin.  For
my style of sysadmin, single-script is the way to go.  A system that
doesn't support that is, for me, basically just plain broken.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B