[CentOS] Putting nat routing into place permanently? -- [OT] and so it begins (the debate)

Bryan J. Smith thebs413 at earthlink.net
Fri Nov 4 00:08:23 UTC 2005

"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.

In fact, it's very supported to drop in scripts into
/etc/init.d/, and countless other directories under /etc --
such as the system crontabs, etc...  The whole reason for the
"directory" design is to make it easy for the packaging
system to be add/remove scripts for different pieces of
software, instead of modifying pre-existing files.

E.g., a great example of that comes up here regularly is the
/etc/yum.repos.d, instead of modifying the stock yum
configuration/repo files.

> *If* that purpose is *still* it's primary reason for being,
> then it is still a *preferred* method if your POV is from a
> support aspect (that is, e.g. RH supporting site admins).

Again, in dealing with Red Hat support myself, I have to

> From rom *that* POV, rc.local is *probably* more visible if
> changed as the RH (e.g.) engineer will be expecting to find
> local changes in there and (probably?) object to having
> local scripts injected into "his" directory(s).

Considering the recommended approach for any 3rd party
software package is to leverage such directories where files
can be added, instead of modifying existing files, the a site
admin who does that "proper" is not doing anything "wrong."

> This is probably moot since the community overall
> disregards these considerations unless they are spending
> money for support.

Well, I think we've gotten well away from the recommendation
that you try to use "service iptables save" to now debating
/etc/init.d/(customscript) v. /etc/rc.d/rc.local.

-- 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

Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)

More information about the CentOS mailing list