cgd writes:
>It's not clear to me that having the full SysV inittab generality is
>really worthwhile...  

The idea behind is is good.  The way it is implemented on SysV is bad
(and doesn't work at all as advertised in some implementations anyway).

The usual SysV inittab starts a lot of things separately that would be
best started from a single script.

It also lacks any standards on what functionality is provided at each
run-level.  What you really want is to introduce names for specific
services and then have the subsystems specify what services the
require and automatically start them in the right order.  E.g. if your
database needs network services to be present it should say so.  If
your turn-key system needs the database to be up and running it should
say so.  You then run lorder  on the initialization scripts (so to
speak) and execute them in the computed order.

What I really like about it is the ability to bring subsystems down in
an orderly fashion when shutting down the system.
-- 
Christoph Badura	bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org		+49 721 606137

Es genuegt nicht, keine Gedanken zu haben;
man muss auch unfaehig sein, sie auszudruecken.  - Karl Kraus