[Slackbuilds-users] Suggestion for packages which require a startup file.

[Keith Richie]

On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Robert Kelsen <rkelsen at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> That's not the "Slackware way" of init. Slackware uses a BSD-like init.
>
> Well, I wasn't expecting such a politically charged response.
>
>
> Then why are there all of these /etc/rc.d/rc*.d directories?
>
> People who say that Slackware's init is "BSD-like" should go and install
> a *BSD before making this comment.
>
>> I vote for not using this for SlackBuilds on slackbuilds.org.
>
> You vote against a symlink?  You'd rather keep manually editing rc.local?
> _______________________________________________
> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users
> Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/
>
>

Let's see -
A single rc.blah file, and edit rc.local{shutdown}.
 or
A single rc.blah, with a link to init.d, then links from that linked
link to different run levels, a K{ill} link to stop the script in the
proper run levels, and a S{tart} link to start the script in the
proper run levels, along with figuring out the K/S number to get the
order correct.

I'm not entirely sure which one is easier to manage, maintain, and update ;-)


"Then why are there all of these /etc/rc.d/rc*.d directories?"
To provide compatibility to those proprietary packages that like to
unnecessarily complicate things. At least Virtual Box gets this right.