Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:22:32 -0400 From: jhandvil <jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com> To: Jeff Fisher <jeff@jeffenstein.dyndns.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports(without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <200408170822.32183.jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20040817055826.GC942@frogger.jeffnet> References: <20040816155653.GA2405@rogue.acs-et.com> <6B9BDB86-EFD9-11D8-924A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040817055826.GC942@frogger.jeffnet>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 17 August 2004 01:58 am, Jeff Fisher wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:10:09AM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > > There is no compelling reason *not* to let ports script participate in > > rcorder(8). > > I'm back on 4.x, so I don't have this man page... However, why not use > S###name.sh, and let the shell wildcard order them for you? It's simple, > effective, and matches what almost everybody else does, which makes it > easier to manage. > > Dependencies are handled by having a standard on what number to choose; > i.e. S1xx = Adding libraries to ldpath or essential system daemons, S2xx = > Non-essential daemons with no dependencies, S3xx = Non-essential daemons > with dependencies, etc.... Someone would be the maintaner of the numbers, > and give everybody their unique number. It's not perfect, but is > relatively easy to manage. This is messy, IMO. While this is a step, I don't think that this would be a step forward. I think that a better way would be to find an elegant method of allowing /usr/local/etc/rc.d to participate in rcorder. I've got plenty of ideas about how to do this without breaking the filesystem dependency, but I'll wait to see what -current and -hackers come up with. I am sure that their method will be cleaner. Thanks, Justin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408170822.32183.jhandvil>