On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:

# ># You can even use sudo/ru/similar to keep the night watchman from 
# ># executing any commands other than /etc/init.d/* to minimize the
# ># damage that said person can do while still allowing for a big
# ># cost savings from not calling the skilled person.
# 
# >..and you can also write a wrapper script which would do what you need.
# >If you have sudo/ru/whatever in place, you're a fool not to have scripts
# >in place which perform specific tasks.
# 
# Exactly - they are called start/stop scripts and conventionally live
# in /etc/*.d :-)

No.  Write what you need.

I still think that the ability to choose one's startup interface
would be preferable.

I half-regret, half-don't that I deleted two raging flames regarding this
whole thing.  To sum up, I think /etc/rc.d is NOT (necessarily) a move
forward, nor did it take into account the bent of the NetBSD user community.

Why do we care about converts from other systems?  What is SO DAMNED BAD
about having a monolithic rc?  Could we not have a stock rc with things
that could get manipulated by ed, if necessary (backing up rc{,.conf})?

I mean, there are better ways than admitting defeat and switching to
some "solution" which is worse than the problem!

I can live with an rc.d for local/pkg stuff, but I'd like to continue
to stay monolithic for the system.  Is this possible, or are the imple-
mentors of this scheme basically telling me "f*ck you and your ideas,
because we don't care anymore"?

				--*greywolf;
--
BSD:  Where are going tomorrow?