Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:59:25 -0500 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> To: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports modifying system setups Message-ID: <4741EB1D.6020903@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com> References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scot Hetzel wrote:
> On 11/18/07, Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> 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 behavior 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 is correct that ports never had this behavior when they were
> converted to the rc_ng startup script style, they always required the
> system administrator to set the appropriate rc variable in
> /etc/rc.conf.
I remember the behavior, but not sure how far back it was. I was using
FreeBSD before rc_ng, so it could have been a _long_ time back.
>
> Before rc_ng some scripts would automatically start on a reboot, while
> others required copying the *.sh{-dist,-default,...} startup script to
> one without the extentsion, as well as setting the execute bit.
>
> This is probably what you are remembering.
>
> Scot
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4741EB1D.6020903>