Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:57:16 -0500 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports modifying system setups Message-ID: <4741EA9C.9080202@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Edwin Groothuis wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: >> activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form >> 'portname_enable="YES"', and this would make your new port operate. >> Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer >> the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed >> to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather >> obvious workaround? > > I don't recall this behaviour at all, I think you're confused with > the messages which ports print at the end of the install-phase which > say "Add 'foo_enable="YES"'" to your /etc/rc.conf to enable this > port. > > Edwin Hmm. I remember this behavioour, but I can't find any example of it now. I need to go look up into my old cdroms (they're around here somewheres, I just need to go unearth them, way back to 1.0). Until I can prove this, I guess I will withdraw it, but I do remember this behavior. Ports, a long time back, used to do all the install steps that they reasonably could do. Couldn't do all the setups for things like dovecot, which has too many options, but even there, an attempt was made to change the conf file to something closer to a FreeBSD standard.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4741EA9C.9080202>