> 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
> implementors of this scheme basically telling me "f*ck you and your
> ideas, because we don't care anymore"?

Well, as I've said before, I certainly feel the latter message
underlying it all.

abs wrote that Luke's work includes an option to generate a monolithic
rc file.  I don't find it on a casual perusal.

Someone else asked what a traditional monolithic file gives that

	cat `rcorder /etc/rc.d/*` > /etc/rc

doesn't.  I've now looked at /etc/rc.d/*, and I can answer that in one
word: comprehensibility.  The only way in which such an rc file is
better than the split-up scheme is that I don't have to grep around to
figure out which script something is started from.  It's still full of
all the other problems, like sourcing rc.subr and rc.conf a dozen times
each, like having to grok a complicated set of shell functions in order
to have a clue what's going on (and in particular what I need to do to
get some desired effect).  The resulting script is almost as much of a
maintenance nightmare as the original split-up files were.

If this, or anything like it, is the "support" for people who want/need
a monolithic rc, then yeah, that's basically saying "we don't care
about your needs, or at least not enough to bother supporting them any
longer".

					der Mouse

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