Doug,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
No one is suggesting removing rc.local, and I would vigorously oppose doing
so.
As I said in my last message, if users respond to the deprecation warning
with a request not to remove it, we
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:25:49PM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Doug,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
No one is suggesting removing rc.local, and I would vigorously oppose
doing
so.
As I said in my last message, if users
Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
Doug,
Sorry for the late reply.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
No one is suggesting removing rc.local, and I would vigorously oppose doing
so.
As I said in my last message, if users respond to the deprecation warning
with a
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:04:41AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Barton writes
:
If you truly want to run something literally before everything else, we'd
have to create something new, which perhaps is what you were getting at
above. Before we add such
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:04:41AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Barton writes
:
If you truly want to run something literally before everything else, we'd
have to create something new, which perhaps is what you
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:04:41AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Barton writes
:
If you truly want to run something literally before everything else, we'd
have to create something new, which perhaps is what you
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not opposed to that idea (in fact I seriously considered it) but
the reason I didn't do it is that I don't have a good sense of why we
need it. Once again as Mike pointed out, the reason that it was there,
and the reason it was .sh was specifically to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not opposed to that idea (in fact I seriously considered it) but
the reason I didn't do it is that I don't have a good sense of why we
need it. Once again as Mike pointed out, the reason that it was
Doug Barton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You didn't even bother to ask on freebsd-rc.
It was discussed there at the time that I added support for local
scripts in the overall boot order. The period of time between now and
then is longer than I would
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 06:13:36PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 05:29:30PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:30:14AM +, Doug Barton wrote:
Modified files:
etc/rc.d early.sh
Log:
This is precisely why we have rc.early and rc.local: so people who have
special (perhaps one-off) needs can do special (perhaps one-off) things
without jumping through too many hoops.
No one is suggesting removing rc.local, and I would vigorously oppose
doing so.
As I said in my
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Barton writes
:
If you truly want to run something literally before everything else, we'd
have to create something new, which perhaps is what you were getting at
above. Before we add such a thing though, I'd like to get an idea of why
it would be needed.
I
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 06:04:41AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I originally added /etc/rc.early to have a way to do things that
needed to happen before fsck, such as arming watchdogs, tweaking
drive parameters or get crypto key material necessary for filesystem
access.
None of these
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:30:14AM +, Doug Barton wrote:
Modified files:
etc/rc.d early.sh
Log:
Deprecate use of the early.sh script as advertised when the support for
local rc.d scripts in the overall boot order was
Dag-Erling Smørgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I must confess I don't really see the point of this change. Yes, people
can write rc.d scripts instead, but not (by far) as easily as they can
add a line or two to rc.early.
If the problem is that rc.early is sourced by early.sh which is sourced
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:21:36PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:30:14AM +, Doug Barton wrote:
Modified files:
etc/rc.d early.sh
Log:
Deprecate use of the early.sh script as advertised
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 05:07:45PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I must confess I don't really see the point of this change. Yes, people
can write rc.d scripts instead, but not (by far) as easily as they can
add a line or two to rc.early.
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 05:29:30PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:30:14AM +, Doug Barton wrote:
Modified files:
etc/rc.d early.sh
Log:
Deprecate use of the early.sh script as advertised when the support for
local rc.d scripts in the
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 05:29:30PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:30:14AM +, Doug Barton wrote:
Modified files:
etc/rc.d early.sh
Log:
Deprecate use of the early.sh script as advertised when the
dougb 2007-10-09 07:30:14 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
etc/rc.d early.sh
Log:
Deprecate use of the early.sh script as advertised when the support for
local rc.d scripts in the overall boot order was added.
Proper rc.d scripts are run by rc.subr
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007, Doug Barton wrote:
DB dougb 2007-10-09 07:30:14 UTC
DB
DB FreeBSD src repository
DB
DB Modified files:
DB etc/rc.d early.sh
DB Log:
DB Deprecate use of the early.sh script as advertised when the support for
DB local rc.d scripts in the
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 07:30:14AM +, Doug Barton wrote:
Modified files:
etc/rc.d early.sh
Log:
Deprecate use of the early.sh script as advertised when the support for
local rc.d scripts in the overall boot order was added.
. /etc/rc.early in /etc/rc will stay?
22 matches
Mail list logo
