> 	- fsck -p gets a -f added.
> 	- ldconfig gets additional arguments.

it's arguable that both of these should be configuration
options/variables.

> 	- the silly removing of everything in /tmp goes away entirely.
> 	- the junk that overwrites the first line of /etc/motd with
> 	   kern.version gets completely trashed.

these could just be removing scripts.

> 	- daemons get added to rc.local.

This would just be adding a script.

> 	- gated and named clauses get an additional "if" added to run
> 	   the local version if available.
> 	- sendmail clause gets changed to run the local version.

and these would actually require modifying an exisiting script...

> Now, some of these are things that would be just adding or removing a
> file under the /etc/init.d scheme.  But at least four of the items I
> listed above (fsck, gated/named, sendmail, ldconfig) would require
> modifying (or replacing) an existing file.

2, if they were done right.

OK, fine, so you have to modify some.  However, when you upgrade, what
do you do?  diff rc, pick out the parts that are changes, modify them,
etc.?

the way you do things, the seperate startup scripts can at least tell
you:
	(1) what files you've changed,
	(2) what files have changed in the master distribution.

This means that when upgrading, you'd have to look at fewer bits of
script, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.


> > my NetBSD boxes have _no_ modifications to /etc/rc, from the base
> > distribution.
> 
> And how much of that base distribution is the way it is because it's
> your idea of good?  (Okay, cheap shot.)

about /etc/rc?  not very much; it'd be using an init.d and a whole
bunch of little scripts, if i had my way.

about the rest of the distribution: a hell of a lot less than you
might think.



cgd