From: <pa...@bo...> - 2001-08-10 08:59:12
|
ir...@ms... (Mike Orr) wrote: > >Sorry, I wasn't following the thread that closely. >init.d/functions is definitely not a standard. The init.d/ directory itself >exists only on Unices that use the System V style initialization system. >In the BSD style, each service is started by a stanza in a general startup >script (/etc/rc.d/rc.M in Slackware Linux), not by its own script. >Nevertheless, Slackware supports an init.d/ directory for compatibility >with third-party packages. I don't remember the different standards, but for what it's worth, Solaris has /etc/init.d and /etc/rc*.d for the different scripts. The former is where actual scripts tend to be placed, and the latter directories usually contain symbolic links to the former. On Red Hat 6.1, there's /etc/rc.d/init.d and /etc/rc.d/rc*.d, with the same kind of symbolic linking conventions, although it's wiser to use chkconfig on RH6.1 to manage these, of course. >My Debian Linux uses init.d/, but there's no init.d/functions . It's a Red Hat thing. >Also, the location of the init.d/ directory is all over the map. >Red Hat Linux uses /etc/rc.d/init.d/, Debian Linux uses /etc/init.d/, >and Jeff's system uses /usr/etc/rc.d/init.d/ . The location of the >startup scripts in one of the biggest inconsistencies between Unices. I think Debian follows SysV most closely, then. Solaris' documentation mentions the motivations for changing the directory hierarchy - I think they arranged it slightly differently in SunOS 4.x and earlier. >Which functions do we need? Attached is a copy of the functions file >from Red Hat 6.2. Of course, some of the code is specific to that >environment. This is probably the script being discussed. It might be wise to assess the portability of it - lots of Linux-related stuff tends to assume the presence of various GNU programs which might not be there on other UNIX systems. Paul -- Get your firstname@lastname email for FREE at http://Nameplanet.com/?su |