>>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 04-Feb-01 10:07:40 PM >>>
>> The bottom line is that, IMHO, writing a portable
>> init.d style (or any other such concept) startup file
>> that is ready for blind use is beyond practicality.
>> It might be better to collect a few of the ones that are
>> being used now (Red Hat-style, SuSE-style, Debian,
>> *BSD-style) and ship them. This should be coordinated
>>with the packagers, though.
>Should I remove init.d from /contrib?
I'm just a postgres user but I don't agree with Peter. I think the
file is valuable.
The file is valuable for people not using a distribution such as
Debian, etc... and also is usefull to people developing packages for
distributions.
I don't use a packaged postgres and it was certainly valuable to me
because it served as an example of what I had to do to get postgres
going quickly in the way that I wanted.
I sent Peter an updated file that IMHO irons out some problems which
may cause Peter to consider the file broken:
- ouptut was being piped to the logger if "syslog" was on
It's not necessary to do that because postgres handles the decision
about syslog depending on the conf file.
- the postmaster was being started without nohup
- the system for setting options wasn't very usefull
the system that I've replaced it with isn't terribly usefull either
but it works.
So anyway, my view as a user is that it's usefull and that a package
specific version would come with the package anyway.
Nic Ferrier
Tapsell-Ferrier Limited
