Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 17:22:59 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports modifying system setups Message-ID: <20071122172259.793f825b@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <4745265B.2050407@FreeBSD.org> References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com> <47449199.5000403@FreeBSD.org> <20071122005011.07bad587@gumby.homeunix.com.> <4745265B.2050407@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:48:59 -0800 Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > RW wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:17 -0800 > > Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > >> ... I have for some time wanted to add > >> support to rc.subr for a /usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d so that ports > >> could install sensible defaults for rc.conf, > > > > What's the advantage of doing that over having the the defaults > > in the rc.d script, > > I thought I explained that. The point of this thread was that services > installed by ports are not (any longer?) on by default. What I'm > proposing is a way to allow the user to choose to enable the service > using an OPTION (amongst other things). You wrote defaults (plural), I thought you might want to handle other thing apart from yes/no. Having the port options determine whether a port should be off or on by default sounds like a nightmare. You wouldn't know what the packager or previous administrator had set as the default without checking the files. People would still end-up putting settings in rc.conf just to be sure - except that then you wouldn't be able to rely on a comment to turn something off.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071122172259.793f825b>