From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 17 13:11:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EDC16A4CE for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:11:42 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9440343D46 for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:11:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 61424 invoked by uid 1001); 17 Aug 2004 13:11:39 -0000 To: jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 2004 08:22:32 -0400" References: <200408170822.32183.jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:11:39 +0200 Message-ID: <61422.1092748299@bizet.nethelp.no> cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports(without touching localpkg) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 13:11:42 -0000 > 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