Summary: Using the LSB Bootscripts

Bryan Kadzban bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net
Wed May 18 20:27:56 PDT 2011


Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>> * the path for the setclock script in 55-lfs.rules needs to be 
>> changed
> 
> So... yeah.
> 
> Why was this whole tree moved in the LSB scripts, again?  :-)
> 
> I really really hate systems where I can't reasonably tab-complete
> the bootscript filenames.  And there's way too much junk in /etc
> whose name collides with init.d for me to enjoy using a system that
> puts the init.d directory directly in /etc.  I *very* much prefer the
> existing bootscript setup, where all of the scripts and whatnot are
> sequestered under /etc/rc.d instead.  (Mostly because that can be tab
> completed after about 2 characters, and anything else under it in
> either 1, or 3.)
> 
> And of course, symlinks don't help, because symlinks (for the
> individual runlevel directories) collide with the rc.d name.
> 
> What requires these specific paths?

Still curious on this.  From the LSB link provided earlier, it *sounds*
like the requirement is that packages can put scripts into /etc/init.d/*
and then run install-initd, to get them turned on.  That can be done
pretty easily with the scripts in /etc/rc.d/init.d and a single symlink
named /etc/init.d pointing into the rc.d tree (no need for the rc?.d
links or directories to be directly in /etc).

Which is what I plan on doing on all of my systems anyway (except
without the link, since I don't care much about this kind of LSB setup)
-- but why not keep the tab completion, which is an IMO-extremely-nice
property of the current script setup?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20110518/4a4c4ad9/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list