Wiser ifdown-eth0 script is needed

Larry Lawrence larry at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Oct 10 15:17:51 PDT 2002

Vassili Dzuba wrote:

> Hi,
> As I understand, there is no strong argument for running sendsignals
> before the K80network in LFS, while there is a significant argument (in
> the BLFS point of view) for executing K45network before sendsignals.
> As the usual user has enough occasions to get his/her share of problems
> when building a LFS/BLFS configuration, i would vote to eliminate the
> problem
> by  moving K80network to K45network (or something analogous) in the LFS.

Part of what LFS gave us was the use of up to 49 to kill the daemons before 
LFS starts globally killing processes, so if you ask for and get K45, you 
broke 5 daemons in the process.  Not exactly progress.  

Since we now have most of the entries in rc0.d, perhaps if you base a 
solution off of that, trying to move as little as possible, and test it.  
Be sure and make reasonable substitutions during testing.

The current configuration emits one warning, all you have to do is fix that 
warning without breaking anything else.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list