Rob MacGregor wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Oliver Eikemeier [mailto:eikemeier_at_fillmore-labs.com] >> >> Nope, only two kinds of scripts will be run: old-style scripts with a >> `.sh' extension, and new-style rc.d scripts without extension. So you >> should not run into an trouble with scripts renamed to `.old' or >> `.disabled', except when you got into the habit to *remove* the >> extension to disable the scripts. > > Ok, I'm confused (but then I haven't had my coffee yet). > > You're saying that any script ending in .sh is assumed to be an old > style one > and processed that way. You're also saying that anything else is > assumed to > be a new style script, correct? No, only scripts without any extension are assumed to be new-style rc.d. Everthing else is ignored. > However, then you say that renaming scripts (new or old?) will be fine, > as > long as you rename them to .old or .disabled - anything else will still > be run > as if it's a new style script? No, I propose that you ignore everthing that has a extension (a dot in its filename), except `.sh' scripts, which are considered to be old-style. > I just want to ensure that I don't get bit by this when it goes live :) Yup. It will be documented then. -OliverReceived on Sat Jul 31 2004 - 10:23:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:04 UTC