Hi, On 1/8/01 at 3:04 PM MaD dUCK wrote:
hi all,
the /etc/rc.d hierarchy is system V as far as i know (or BSD? - i always mix them up). suse, however, doesn't use it and decides to employ /sbin/init.d. is this FHS? why was this choice made? what are the advantages? sure, they are "programs" to be executed at boot, and as such, /sbin is right and /etc was never the right place, but why not have /etc/rc.d/rc?.d with symlinks to /sbin/init.d - because the rc stuff in /sbin/init.d as well as boot, boot.local, halt, halt.local are really /etc candidates whereas the scripts for various programs like qmail/postfix, bind, dhcpd, ntpd etc. are /sbin candidates.
what are your thoughts? does anyone know suse's rationale?
AFAIK this is due to the FHS (which needs lots of clarification IMHO). The FHS states "No binaries should go directly into /etc." and only states that boot scripts "may resemble System V or BSD models" with the caveat that future versions of the FHS may further define this. Sections 3.4 and 3.10 refer to /etc and /sbin respectively. The FHS is available here http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ As to the differences between SysV and BSD init, I'd have to consult my copy of Essential System Administration (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/esa2/) which I don't have handy. IIRC, the BSD style is to have individual scripts in the runlevel directories as opposed to S? and K? type links, but it's been a while so don't rely on that. HTH, Tim