Re: [WACKO] rc configurations in xml?

[Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd@2003.snew.com>]

Your rc.local can run rc.d/ scripts if you want.

eg:
for script in /etc/rc.d/S*; do
	. $script    (or "sh $script" depending).
done

It makes life simpler for people who want such.
I use startup/shutdown scripts for a lot of things.
NetBSD (and now FreeBSD 5.0) have a net scheme to deal with
dependancies and ordering.  OpenBSD folks have expressed
hostility to it over and over (since 2.2 when I first brought
it up to arguments that I was looking to replace the kernel
with System V (and more rational arguments))


As far as XML parsers being available in single user mode (whence
rc is called), I won't begin to imagine the hostility you will
encounter here for that.

Me?  I'm playing with XML sources for SOME config files that
GENERATE the real files Unix wants.  (See the m0n0wall project
for some neat stuff).

Quoting Joel Rees (joel@alpsgiken.gr.jp):
> Been reading the archives about rc*.
> 
> I'm in the middle of setting mysql 3.23 up, and right now I'm calling
> the sample mysql control script (/usr/local/share/mysql/mysql.server) from
> rc.local and thinking that's not really clean. And my knee-jerk reaction
> was to make an rc.local.d or something, and copy the mysql.server sample
> into there (and probably customize it a bit). And then call that script
> from rc.local.
> 
> I get the impression that the primary argument against using a
> subdirectory such as rc.d to put collect all is that openbsd is not
> intended to become a framework for washing the laundry and putting out
> the cat. (So to speak.) The number of daemons/services running should
> not grow so much that the current set of scripts become unmanageable. 
> (And those who want their computers to walk the dog for them can either
> run freebsd or Mac OS X, or roll their own loop.)

> Anyway, this wacko idea hit me, and it's not something I'm prepared to
> do right away (i. e., this year), not even something I necessarily think
> is a good idea (boot calling an XML parser?), but I thought I'd sound
> the bottom. 
> 
> Would there be any particular interest or antipathy towards defining an
> XML (or similar) tagged syntax for the rc scripts? Is the idea a good
> one for the back burner, or better for the trash pile?