From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 17 21:55:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D149916A4CE for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:55:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postal1.es.net (postal1.es.net [198.128.3.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B531343D2D for ; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:55:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal1.es.net (Postal Node 1) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:55:21 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 4BCA45D04; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:55:21 -0700 (PDT) To: sthaug@nethelp.no In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:11:39 +0200." <61422.1092748299@bizet.nethelp.no> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:55:21 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20040817215521.4BCA45D04@ptavv.es.net> cc: jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports(without touching localpkg) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:55:22 -0000 > From: sthaug@nethelp.no > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:11:39 +0200 > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > > I think that a better way would be to find an elegant method of > > allowing /usr/local/etc/rc.d to participate in rcorder. I've got plenty of > > ideas about how to do this without breaking the filesystem dependency, but > > I'll wait to see what -current and -hackers come up with. I am sure that > > their method will be cleaner. > > I would much prefer to keep ports out of /etc (or out of the root file > system in general). I agree with the point made by several others that > the clean separation of base system and local mods is one of the great > strengths of FreeBSD. > > Since /etc/rc.d/local (or similar) has been proposed: > > - Why cannot /usr/local/etc/rc.d be used with rcorder if /etc/rc.d/local > is okay? What if a startup script need to do something BEFORE /usr is mounted? My case in point is Tobias Roth's profile.sh script. Since this is a script only with no programs in /usr/local, the only way to put it into a port is to allow it into the root filesystem in some place where it can be run before any filesystem is mounted. (It is dependent on ly on fsck.) > - If the argument is that /usr/local is not available: Okay, but in that > case you won't be able to start the ports anyway, since they are located > somewhere under /usr/local. Nope. The man page could be in /usr/local/man, but the startup script is the entire port, so there is nothing in /usr/local needed to run it. I can conceive of other ports that DO have executables in /usr/local that need to do some type of initialization before /usr is mounted. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634