From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 19 19:58:30 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2173B16A419 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:58:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0480A13C461 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:58:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: (qmail 12613 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2007 19:58:20 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (chuckr@[66.92.151.30]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 19 Nov 2007 19:58:20 -0000 Message-ID: <4741EA9C.9080202@chuckr.org> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:57:16 -0500 From: Chuck Robey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071107 SeaMonkey/1.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Edwin Groothuis References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> In-Reply-To: <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports modifying system setups X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:58:30 -0000 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.