From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 19 20:03:52 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 660B816A419 for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:03:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491D113C44B for ; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:03:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: (qmail 22981 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2007 20:03:45 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (chuckr@[66.92.151.30]) (envelope-sender ) by mail1.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 19 Nov 2007 20:03:45 -0000 Message-ID: <4741EBE1.4080502@chuckr.org> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:02:41 -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: Naram Qashat References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <47410380.5080406@cyberbotx.com> <4741E3E3.7060808@chuckr.org> <4741E966.1090601@cyberbotx.com> In-Reply-To: <4741E966.1090601@cyberbotx.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 20:03:52 -0000 Naram Qashat wrote: > In the pkgtools.conf file that portupgrade installs, there's two > sections, BEFOREINSTALL and AFTERINSTALL. In BEFOREINSTALL, you could > put the following in to make it try to stop the service if there's an rc > script for the port: > > '*' => proc { |origin| cmd_stop_rc(origin) } > > And almost the same thing for AFTERINSTALL, except cmd_start_rc instead > of cmd_stop_rc. And as long as the line for that service is in > /etc/rc.conf, it'll start or stop via the rc script. It even says that > in the comments of pkgtools.conf. Ah, you misunderstood me. I was never saying, or meaning, that ports could not do it, I was saying they did not do it, no one I have seen implemented that behavior. Yes, you're certainly right, they can, they've had the ability all along. > > Naram Qashat > > Chuck Robey wrote: >> Naram Qashat wrote: >>> Also a good thing to point out is that portupgrade can be configured >>> to automatically start or stop a port's daemon via it's >>> /usr/local/etc/rc.d script, which still relies on having the >>> appropriate line in /etc/rc.conf to tell the rc.d script to run, but >>> it is helpful for upgrading ports which have daemons so they can be >>> shut down and then started again after the upgrade is complete. >> >> Not sure I understand what you mean here. I *think* I remember that >> ports (quoite a while back) did not require any patching of rc.conf at >> all, just coding in /usr/local/etc/rc.d. Nowadays, there are required >> lines in rc.conf which fire sections of rc.d, but apparently (and i do >> approve of this) the /etc/rc.conf can't be touched. I guess I don't >> understand why not have the entire startup code in rc.d, and merely >> have rc source in rc.d after it's finished with rc.conf. >> >> I just took a good long look at portupgrade, I didn't see any option >> like you're talking about. You understand, there is no reason that >> ports couldn't do what I'm asking about. They aren't written to do >> this (at least, several different daemon-ports that I've installed >> all required manual patching of rc.conf). This isn't just my own >> interpretation, because the ports themselves hint to the user that >> they should patch rc.conf to get the port working as a daemon. >> >> I'm just saying that ports should be written to handle this >> themselves, and not to require manual patching to get this done. One >> reason would be users (non-technical ones) who install a particular >> port as a dependency, and thus never even see the comments about what >> they should do to get things working. I can't see any reason NOT to >> do this, and good reason why it should be done. >> >>> >>> Naram Qashat >>> >>> Chuck Robey wrote: >>>> I was wondering why ports apparently aren't allowed an obvious >>>> freedom, that of being able to set themselves to run as daemons. A >>>> greate long time past, I seem to remember that there used to be a >>>> file /usr/local/etc/rc.local, which (if it existed) would be >>>> automatically sourced in at the end of rc.conf. Ports which built >>>> daemons were allowed (well, actually, expected) to ask the user if >>>> they wished to 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'm pretty sure this used to be allowed... and it seems like a good >>>> policy to me, from the number of non-technical folks who now run >>>> FreeBSD. I just wanted to know why its not anymore. >>>> __ >> >> >> >> _____________________________________________ >>>> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>>> "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>