gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jul 24 07:12:44 PDT 2000
> Wouldn't this give problems if the startscript for e.g. sshd is called
> sshd :) - I think giving the name rc* is much clearer...
> So you have to rename the scripts or link to them (perhaps not all).
> Another thing is: Why should I start "rc" or similar?
True, you would have to give the scripts a prefix.
You wouldn't want to start rc and rcS directly, unless you want to
change runlevels without actually changing runlevels (so you can test
the scripts for example - that's how I usually test them). But even if
you do add /etc/init.d to your $PATH the only two files you wouldn't use
are rc and rcS. Even the functions script can be run directory and you
can use it's status function to test for, say, terminals:
gerard:~$ source /etc/init.d/functions
gerard:~$ statusproc /bin/bash
/bin/bash is running with Process ID 110 69
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Mail archive: http://www.pcrdallas.com/mail-archives/lfs-discuss
IRC access: server: irc.linuxfromscratch.org port: 6667 channel: #LFS
Unsubscribe: email lfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org and put
"unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the body of the message
(no subject is required)
More information about the lfs-dev