Last week I sent a small patch (~10 lines) for /etc/rc to robert@ that would allow to prefix daemons in rc_scripts with an '@' and then these prefixed daemons would be started in background. For example: rc_scripts="foo @bar baz". bar would be started to background.
robert replied that starting to background is already implemented and I should use rc_bg=YES in the individual rc scripts. Then I asked him if he thinks that this is really the "right" design decision, but I did not get any answer. Just to be sure: I don't blame robert in any way for not replaying, but I am really curious why you guys took that design decision. The rest is more or less the mail I wrote to robert: Thanks for clearing that up, my fault. Do you really think it is the right design decision? I think we can agree that it is more or less impossible for the daemon package maintainer to decide if it is always safe to start the daemon in background. Maybe there are other daemons that depend on it, or maybe not. Therefore it is a decision that has to be taken by the admin of the system and system by system. Now imagine you install daemons "a", "b", "c", and "d". Then you have to edit rc_scripts and bring them in the right order. Then you decide from that, that it is safe to start those without a dependency in the background. Then you have to edit all these rc scripts and set rc_bg to YES. Now imagine on a reboot something goes wrong. You have to check rc_scripts (where you do not see which daemons were started in background) and then you have to take a look at all of the individual rc scripts if the daemon was started in background as this might be the cause of the problem. With the current solution there is no single point where you get the whole picture, it is cluttered around rc_scripts and the individual rc scripts. I think with the proposed solution you have a single point, namely rc_scripts where you get the whole picture and you have a single point to edit/change the order and the starting-to-background behaviour. Did I miss something important here? Best regards, Roland
