On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 12:07, Dylan Reinhardt wrote: > On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 10:45:12 -0800 (PST), Dave doughnut Fogarty > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One should, of course, keep in mind that "theDJBway" is just that. It is > > not the RedHat way. > > True enough, and well worth pointing out. > > > > If you start to head down the DJB path, you'll loose > > a lot of help from a lot of people. > > That's still a winning proposition if you also lose some of the > difficulties that adherants to the "Red Hat Way" have learned to live > with. :-) > > $.02, YMMV, etc, > > Dylan
Thanks for all the responses--they were very helpful. Since I'm installing this for a client who has very little linux experience, but does have funds to have purchased a license agreement, I have decided to stick with the "Redhat" way. More likely to get support if anything happens in the future. With that being said, I was able to successfully create the daemons I needed. Having done this I did come up with a couple of questions where I was hoping to get clarification: 1. Within the init scripts, after all the setup, the actual start command (where the executable is) was always prefaced with the word "daemon", like: daemon $INIT_PROG $INIT_OPTIONS Does anyone know what the word daemon is for? 2. In all other scripts, the command is called without the & at the end of the line. Mine runs a perl script and a bash shell. The bash shell I was forced to put the & in so that the startup process didn't hang. Do most of the executables do this by default, and are therefore not needed? The perl script had a -detach option, so the & wasn't needed. Is that how most daemon programs run, or is there some other way that I'm missing that forces the application to run in the background (not hang when calling /etc/init.d/[app] start)? Thanks for the help and the clarification on all this! Kevin Williams _______________________________________________ PDXLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdxlug.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxlug
