> If we're even going to CONSIDER this kind of thing, then the hooks really
> need to be written into halt(8)/reboot(8) and shutdown(8) since you don't
> want to run
> 
> 	netbsd# shutdown +30
> 
> and have the machine shut your databases down half an hour before the
> shutdown actually happens.

Yes.  But that's all really arguing in favour of run-levels and I've
already said they don't bother me. 

> I would respectfully request that the rc.d thing be made an option and
> not a mandatory thing (and call it something else).

Why is the name important?  There are advantages in doing things in
simple generic ways.  It means you can more easily leverage off your
earlier efforts.  

I have _one_ 137 line rc.sh which is drives /etc/rc.d,
/etc/rc.local.d, /etc/daily.d, /etc/weekly.d, /local/configs/config.d
.... and dozens of others all by simply making a symlink to a single
script. 

[actually my rc.sh could be a lot shorter but it includes which,
dirname and basename all in bourne-shell so it does not need them
during boot... :-)]

> A config file with normally-named scripts would be nicer, or at least
> less repulsive to the trained eye. :-)

But much more work for other than the trivial system start up
script(s).  I much prefer *.d/* than having to write 20-30 individual
scripts and/or config files for all the cases I mentioned - just so I
can avoid a directory name that reminds me of SysV.

--sjg