Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:11:39 +0200 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports(without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <61422.1092748299@bizet.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:22:32 -0400" References: <200408170822.32183.jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. I would much prefer to keep ports out of /etc (or out of the root file system in general). I agree with the point made by several others that the clean separation of base system and local mods is one of the great strengths of FreeBSD. Since /etc/rc.d/local (or similar) has been proposed: - Why cannot /usr/local/etc/rc.d be used with rcorder if /etc/rc.d/local is okay? - If the argument is that /usr/local is not available: Okay, but in that case you won't be able to start the ports anyway, since they are located somewhere under /usr/local. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?61422.1092748299>