What's happening to FreeBSD?

[hruodr]

We need to have a parallel service framework. And people need to be able to use the old decades-proven script system.

Who is "we" and who is "the people". You speak like a politician from the elite ("we") that care for "the people".

I indeed do not need "a parallel service framework", do not even know for what can it be good,
but politicians like to tell others what they need.

If I see any necessity to touch rc, then, to make it simpler, not more inflated. rc is run at a critical moment and is hence
a very critical program.

This discussions about rc are of the level of the ones about "desktop".

 

[T-Aoki]

Who is "we" and who is "the people". You speak like a politician from the elite ("we") that care for "the people".

I indeed do not need "a parallel service framework", do not even know for what can it be good,
but politicians like to tell others what they need.

If I see any necessity to touch rc, then, to make it simpler, not more inflated. rc is run at a critical moment and is hence
a very critical program.

This discussions about rc are of the level of the ones about "desktop".

Putting pararrel service aside, rc.d framework would need to be extended.

Not myself, but there had been question and answers here the forums or any of MLs that need to let behavior of rc.d scripts depending on specific rc.d script exists in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ and enabled or not.

If I recall correctly, the person asked finally added dummy rc.d script.
But if there's a mechanism to "require only when it exisis and enabled", the port affected can blindly use the mechanism without making users (admins) in panic.

Current rc.d mechanism is good, but not yet perfect.