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? martin [greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo madduck@!#:1:s@\@@@.net -- "the human brain is like an enormous fish -- it is flat and slimy and has gills through which it can see." -- monty python
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, MaD dUCK wrote:
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.
I don't know the SysV spec in detail, so I can't say whether /sbin/init.d "violates" SysV or not. But the same layout (with /sbin/init.d, /etc/rc.config and /etc/rc.config.d) is being used by HP (in HP-UX) and Compaq (in Tru64UNIX), so SuSE is not alone here. This layout _is_ FHS compliant, though. It's just a matter of interpretation. The standard says something like "/etc should not contain any runnable programs". (Please correct me here) What SuSE has done, is to say that scripts are also "runnable programs". So they moved these scripts to /sbin/init.d. The point is also that you should never have to touch the scripts in /sbin/init.d or the links in /sbin/rc*.d after you made them. The runlevel script should souce /etc/rc.config or a script in /etc/rc.config.d and all options that you would want to tune/change, and also options telling whether the applications should be started or not, should be located there. So the runnable scripts are located under /sbin while the config scripts are located under /etc. I think SuSE's layout improves readability a lot, at least compared to the "mess" in Red Hat/Debian and Solaris where you have to rename links and edit rc files. ---J.T.U.
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
also sprach Tim Duggan (on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:51:26AM -0500):
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.
what's "IIRC" again? and that's what i though too, so i think it's safe to assume that redhat/debian /etc/rc.d is SysV. martin [greetings from the heart of the sun]# echo madduck@!#:1:s@\@@@.net -- "and if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear you shout and no one seems to hear and if the band you're in starts playing different tunes i'll see you on the dark side of the moon." -- pink floyd, 1972
On 1/8/01 at 4:51 PM MaD dUCK wrote:
also sprach Tim Duggan (on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:51:26AM -0500):
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.
what's "IIRC" again?
If I remember correctly.
and that's what i though too, so i think it's safe to assume that redhat/debian /etc/rc.d is SysV.
I'd also assume that suse is also SysV since the structure is similiar and only the location is different. Be well, Tim
participants (3)
-
Jon Trygve Utne -
MaD dUCK -
Tim Duggan