Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 21:47:19 -0700 From: "Jack L." <xxjack12xx@gmail.com> To: "Dan Mahoney (Gushi)" <freebsd@gushi.org> Cc: FBSD Ports Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Message-ID: <CALeGphxfuzRUXh7MKf_z43YNVRUNbFFcGMpG4sRXyfZ41PGXaA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1808281712030.20249@prime.gushi.org> References: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1808281712030.20249@prime.gushi.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
There is no 11.4, did you mean 10.4?
Which pkg did you install?
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) <freebsd@gushi.org> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Funny question. I'm on FreeBSD 11.4, and would like to use the latest
> version of NTP, which is in pkg.
>
> The version in pkg doesn't have a startup script, which I'm not sure is
> supposed to be the case. I know for things like BIND (when it was both in
> base and in ports) you could override the binary in /etc/rc.conf.
>
> However, the version of /etc/rc.d/ntpd in BASE doesn't seem to have the
> ability to override the binary in rc.conf:
>
> name="ntpd"
> rcvar="ntpd_enable"
> command="/usr/sbin/${name}"
> pidfile="/var/run/${name}.pid"
> extra_commands="fetch"
> fetch_cmd="ntpd_fetch_leapfile"
> start_precmd="ntpd_precmd"
>
> What's weirder, is even if I manually modify the /etc/rc.d/ntpd file to
> point at /usr/local/sbin (which I should never have to do), the version in
> /usr/sbin gets started.
>
> root@vortex2:/etc/rc.d # service ntpd start
> Starting ntpd.
> root@vortex2:/etc/rc.d # ps auxwww|grep ntpd
> root 36362 38.3 0.2 26192 18132 - Ss 12:17AM 0:04.73
> /usr/sbin/ntpd -c /etc/ntp.conf -p /var/run/ntpd.pid -f /var/db/ntpd.drift
> root 36364 0.0 0.0 18844 2328 1 R+ 12:17AM 0:00.00 grep ntpd
> root@vortex2:/etc/rc.d # grep command ntpd
> command="/usr/local/sbin/${name}"
> [...]
>
> So, asking as a port maintainer, a few questions:
>
> 0) Why the heck is it doing this even when I override the path?
>
> 1) How can we encourage base to allow override of command_name?
>
> 2) Is this a brokenness in the port that it doesn't ship with a startup
> file?
>
> 3) Not strictly related, but what's the proper case for pathing since things
> like "ntpq", the base path would naturally be found in any standard $PATH.
> Some ports used to have an overwrite_base option, but this also feels wrong
> as it breaks freebsd-update in various ways. I.e. should the port print a
> message stating that you should chmod 000 the original binaries? Should the
> ports versions be named something different? Should the port just warn you
> that you need to call these things by absolute path, always?
>
> -Dan
>
> --
>
> --------Dan Mahoney--------
> Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
> Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
> FB: fb.com/DanielMahoneyIV
> LI: linkedin.com/in/gushi
> Site: http://www.gushi.org
> ---------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALeGphxfuzRUXh7MKf_z43YNVRUNbFFcGMpG4sRXyfZ41PGXaA>