Gregory Avedissian wrote re SuSE's boot.local

Any idea why the same file also exists in /etc/rc.d/ along with boot.setup and some others?

Direct answer, no :-( I did a locate boot.local and got back only /etc/init.d/boot.local (I tried this on five machines here running SusE 7.2 and they all showed just one copy) However, just to be sure, I went to /etc/rc.d and a ls -al gave me that boot.local you describe! So now, I am at a loss as to why locate could not find it :-( but, anyway ... I then poked around in the boot scripts (cf "SuSE Boot Concept" in the manual p 309 ff, or just man init.d ) and took a look at /etc/rc.d/boot --- the file init runs at the beginning. In there you can search for "local" (i.e. less /etc/rc.d/boot and then enter /local <return> followed by three N's each to move on to the Next place there is a "local" ) and see that init, the program that counts here, looks for and at /etc/init.d/boot.local. So this indicates it is the boot.local in /etc/rc.d which is the odd one. There also does not seem to be a symbolic link between them. With SuSE I am always suspicious of what SuSEconfig and /etc/rc.config are doing so I wondered whether SuSEconfig was looking at both boot.local files. But it seems to look at neither; in particular, it does not use one to update the other. I poked around on the web and, at http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/Wacom-USB-mini-HOWTO-4.html found "Next I added in the /etc/rc.d/boot.local file (remember, I use a SuSE distribution, but you should fine an equivalent for RedHat in /etc/rc.d/init.d/boot.local or /etc/rc.d/init.d/rc.local)" This makes me think the /etc/rc.d location is atavistic, harking back to earlier versions of SuSE. I looked in my old 5.2 manual and could not see a clear proof of this but I do note that with the 7.2 SuSE version they seem to have tried to stick more closely to standards (page 287) so that old /etc/rc.d resting place may be in for some backwards compatibility with user's old scripts. My only problem with that theory is that I cannot find where the /etc/rc.d/boot.local file would get read in 7.2 The bottom line is clear --- use /etc/init.d/boot.local if you want to add a special modprobe or the like in recent SuSE distros. But, I'll still keep my eyes open for confirmation of the above or an alternative view. doug

I did a locate boot.local and got back only /etc/init.d/boot.local

(I tried this on five machines here running SusE 7.2 and they all showed just one copy)

However, just to be sure, I went to /etc/rc.d and a ls -al gave me that boot.local you describe!

Hi Doug, The reason that /etc/init.d/boot.local and /etc/rc.d/boot.local are the same file is because /etc/rc.d is a link to /etc/init.d on my SuSE 7.2 PRO system. linuxpc> ls -ald /etc/rc.d lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Mar 24 2001 /etc/rc.d -> init.d Later, Andy -- Andy Stewart Founder Worcester Linux Users' Group Worcester, MA, USA http://www.wlug.org

The reason that /etc/init.d/boot.local and /etc/rc.d/boot.local are the same file is because /etc/rc.d is a link to /etc/init.d on my SuSE 7.2 PRO system.

linuxpc> ls -ald /etc/rc.d lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Mar 24 2001 /etc/rc.d -> init.d

Been there, done that :-) Actually, I tried root@233p5:/ > ls -al /etc/init.d/boot.local -rwxr--r-- 1 root root 447 Jan 30 16:37 /etc/init.d/boot.local root@233p5:/ > ls -al /etc/rc.d/boot.local -rwxr--r-- 1 root root 447 Jan 30 16:37 /etc/rc.d/boot.local | |____________________ | and found that both had the number 1 where I expected 2. I then went back to an old UNIX manual and did some more reading :-) and tried root@233p5:/ > ls -il /etc/init.d/boot.local 274722 -rwxr--r-- 1 root root 447 Jan 30 16:37 /etc/init.d/boot.local root@233p5:/ > ls -il /etc/rc.d/boot.local 274722 -rwxr--r-- 1 root root 447 Jan 30 16:37 /etc/rc.d/boot.local and, miracles still happen, got the same inodes for both files. So it looks like we have a hard link. However, we still have 1 and not 2 :-) I notice you have the same "disease" I then wondered whether SuSE was doing something odd. I therefore went to /tmp and, as root, created two subdirectories z1 and z2. I then cat'd /etc/fstab to z1/test1 to create a file. I finally created a hard link from z2/test1 to z1/test1. When I now did a ls -il on those two test1 files, there were 2's where they should be! At this point, Chuck suggested I do a forced fsck. I had some trouble at first (until he showed me I had to remount / ro; I had tried the SuSE rescue system but it complained about bad superblocks and/or odd "magic numbers". This happened on three boxes so I was unconvinced there was a screwed up file system on all three machines). I have just now finished that fsck -f /dev/hda7 on my notebook and all it reports is 0.2% non-contiguous --- as I suspected from the problem on three boxes (or 4, if we include yours) no screwed up file system. So the mystery now is why do we both get 1 for those linked files. doug filesystem.