rc script priority limitation

Chad Simmons polpak at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 31 18:43:58 PDT 2001


--- Adrian Ho <aho-lfs-discuss at 03s.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 02:24:40PM -0400, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> > i'd like to see proper sorting so if we have:
> > S50
> > S100
> > S5000
> > 
> > they are executed in that order and not as S100, S50, S5000
> 
> Is that necessarily a good idea?  Methinks it would get rather confusing
> if 'ls' tells you stuff gets started in one order, while the actual
> sequence is something else entirely.  Mistakes are easily made this way.
> 
> I vote for the simpler approach: Just remove the serial width limitation.
> Then folks can choose whatever funky numbering scheme they want
> (eg. factoring startup shell scripts), secure in the knowledge that a
> simple 'ls' will tell them the exact order that everything will be run.

I'm in agreement with keeping them to the ls ordering. All other sorts are done
alpha-numerically why not this one?

Chad Simmons


=====
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1
GCS/L/C/O d-(+) s++:+ a-- C+++$>++++ UBLS++++$ 
P+++(--)$ L++>+++ E--- W+>++$ N !o K? w(--) !O 
M- !V PS+ PE(++) Y+ PGP->+ t- 5 X+() R(+) tv+@ 
b++(+++) !DI+++ D G(-) e>+++$ h---() r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list