From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 19 20:00:37 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 99B5A16A468 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:00:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBF113C43E for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:00:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: (qmail 28084 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2007 20:00:28 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (chuckr@[66.92.151.30]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 19 Nov 2007 20:00:28 -0000 Message-ID: <4741EB1D.6020903@chuckr.org> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:59:25 -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: Scot Hetzel References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com> 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 20:00:37 -0000 Scot Hetzel wrote: > On 11/18/07, 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 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