Linux - DistributionsThis forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on...
Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Okee dokee, finegan and the rest who have/are set(ting) up an LFS system, I have a specific question. Assuming (I know some of you have) you are this far or further it's about the rc script code. When writing the rc script there are two lines in seperate places. Here is the code and then the problem:
suffix=${i#/etc/rc$runlevel.d/K[0-9] [0-9] [0-9]}
This is from the most recent 3.1 book. The hash is commenting out the rest of the code from itself to the end of the line as if you were leaving notes and what not yadda yadda...I am wondering if it's a script error even though it's found twice (so far)? Or have I missed something? Thanks for any help. I'm almost done but checking over the code this struck me as not right.
which goes to define the shell that the script is interpreted with. if you look at the start of a standard init script, it ususally says #!/bin/sh or something, which defines what to process the script with. if it's a perl script, then you'd need #!/bin/perl at the start etc... i'm not too sure that this is exactly the same kinda thing, but... well... probably related, maybe.
Okay, yeah, erm... I know that a hash is almost always the start of a comment line, but bash can be bewildering when every character from [ to ' can call something from /bin, but do something different when proceded by another character. I think the # has something to do with calling the parse of all of the different runlevels... erm uh, yeah. Me silly MCSE boy go bang rock against RJ-45 head now.
No, I'm kidding, I would never take the MCSE exam. Okay, maybe at gunpoint, but it would have to be a big gun.
The rc script, unmodified (except for some of the messages), worked perfectly for me. No matter how weird it looks, its kinda hard to argue with that.
Honestly, a good bit of the scripts were voodoo to me. I had to fiddle with them to get everything to work right, but that was largely due to my minimalist kernel. Basically my distro supports Pentium 1s with IDE drives, atapi cdroms, the ext2 file system, the ocasional dos floppy, and a sound card. Hell, I ditched USB, parrallel and erm, I don't know, other stuff I actually have but never use.
Well, shucks, I guess i'll let it do it's thing then. I'll be up and running today. I actually pondered writing each script myself, but then I looked at the book printouts I made and said, HELL no! LOL That would take days and i'd end up with but*loads of errors. I wouldn't take the MCSE either...It's expensive, I mean nasty expensive, and they make it so hard I think only 2 in 10 pass on the first round. Not to mention the test is 7 as i remember different tests. Sheesh...No thanks, I'll go Cisco! Hmm RJ-45 head? Does that mean I could use you as a cable extension? LOL Well thanks both for the replies. I am inclined to think blue has something there, but for some reason I still think it would comment out the code. Oh well...Enough talky, more worky...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.