[CentOS] Putting nat routing into place permanently? -- [OT]
and so it begins (the debate)
William L. Maltby
BillsCentOS at triad.rr.com
Fri Nov 4 13:10:58 UTC 2005
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 16:08 -0800, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> "William L. Maltby" <BillsCentOS at triad.rr.com> wrote:
> > Philosophically, I agree. *However*, we should keep in mind
> > that the original provision of that script was to keep
> > sysadmins (and others) from having to monkey with the
> > standard "supported" stuff.
> Not true.
Please note the word "original". If you research back to the epoch or
thereabouts, you may find that I spoke the truth. I began working on
UNIX PWB Versions 6/7. There was no "local" then. No symlinks, etc.
Later, (with SCO?) I saw rc.local appear. And its purpose was as I
stated. I can't recall if/when it all appeared in System III/IV/V. There
were a couple different versions of directory structures too.
I don't consider myself qualified to *know* the purpose and/or intent of
current developers/maintainers. That's why my subsequent statements were
qualified with "if".
Anyway, I do appreciate you bringing me "up to snuff" regarding current
intent, purpose and attitudes.
Thanks for taking the time.
I do have 1 question regarding your information. You mention that the
directories are intended for packages to use.... but you don't mention
the sorts of things that started this thread, "local" changes other than
packages. If the OP was to use a script to do the mentioned firewall
changes, and his script is locally generated (not part of a package), is
it still intended that the script be stuck in the directories as if it
were just another package? Or would that be better invoked (directly or
indirectly) via the rc.local script?
> -- Bryan
> P.S. Non-Red Hat note -- also remember that
> /etc/rc.d/rc.local is _not_ LSB last time I checked. Several
> distros (and even non-Linux releases, such as Solaris) define
> a /etc/rc#.d/S99local instead, and I think that's what Red
> Hat now does too (starting with what distro release?), which
> then points at the "local" for their implementation
> (/etc/rc.d/rc.local, being the legacy for Red Hat). So one
> might argue that "/etc/rc#.d/S99local" is the script. But
> now I'm just being anal. @-ppp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051104/744fdab4/attachment.bin
More information about the CentOS