jeremy at jutley.org
Tue Jun 8 21:37:34 PDT 2004
Nathan Coulson wrote:
>>>Comparing slackware and LFS ,one cannot but notice that the changing of
>>>permissions on scripts to make them run at boot (making them
>>>executable,that is) is much easier than inserting all those symlinks
>>>into the various rcx.d .Why is this method favoured on LFS?
>>Firstly, all scripts in /etc/rc.d/init.d are executable. They have to be
>>in order to run. Secondly, all the symlinks are placed in directories
>>corresponding to the runlevel number because that's how Sysvinit works.
>>I'm unfamiliar with Slackware's boot process but if they don't have to
>>do it like the way we do then the probably aren't using Sysvinit.
>I believe slackware uses what is known as BSD style bootscripts. [runs
>scripts, instead of a bunch of files in a directory, I think... (but I
This is correct, Slackware uses a BSD-style init, and, I might note, is
the ONLY major linux distribution I'm aware of that does. Gentoo seems
to use something customized by them, but most other distros use SysV
init, just like we do. Personally, I dislike BSD-style init, since you
have to go digging thru all the different scripts to find the daemon you
want to disable, while with LFS disabling a daemon temporarily is as
simple as chmod -x'ing the script in /etc/rc.d/init.d, and a more
permanent solution is to remove the symlink to the script from the
More information about the lfs-support