Update to solaris package creation (init script links)

[William R. Knox]

I also do tend towards soft links, but only if I'm not installing as a
package (which I tend to avoid) - after all, I don't tend to want to move
a part of the package out of the way and put a new one in. In my mind,
that (partially, at least) defeats the point of having a package, which is
knowing exactly what you have in place. So I would agree that, in this
instance, it should be hard links (i.e. following the vendor's standard).

			Bill Knox
			Senior Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst
			The MITRE Corporation

On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Peter Watkins wrote:

> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:18:39 -0500
> From: Peter Watkins <peterw at usa.net>
> To: Tim Rice <tim at multitalents.net>
> Cc: Ben Lindstrom <mouring at etoh.eviladmin.org>,
>      OpenSSH Development <openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org>
> Subject: Re: Update to solaris package creation (init script links)
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 08:53:20AM -0800, Tim Rice wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Ben Lindstrom wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> > > >>  The modifications are:
> > > >>     - the rc?.d scripts are hard links not soft links
> >
> > I prefer hard links too. Anyone else vote for this?
>
> I generally prefer soft links -- it seems odd that after
>  cd /etc/init.d; mv foo foo.old; mv foo.new foo
> you'd still have the old script executed. But hard links are what
> Sun uses for its SysV S/K entities, so I see the logic. Basically
> I don't like how Sun does it, but understand the logic of OpenSSH
> behaving in the same manner as the OS vendor; that's probably the
> better way to behave, for consistency's sake. :-(
>
> -Peter
> _______________________________________________
> openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org mailing list
> http://www.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
>