Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:51:37 -0500 From: "Mike" <mspam@www.ideaway.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <20040817145137.M47203@www.ideaway.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I guess that by having enough people bring up their concerns, I am hoping that such a change will be reconsidered... Without sounding too much like a broken record - separating packages from the base into a different partition is an asset I would much rather not loose. I believe many people have made a coherent enough argument that I wholehearedly agree with, but I'd just also like to add something I haven't seen (perhaps missed). I have a setup where an old slow NIS/NFS server provides a combination of /usr/local, /home, and swap for a bunch of even slower machines. The beauty of this setup is that as long as the software installed in /usr/local is built for the lowest common denominator processor (all are obviously x86) everything just works. And it works well. The scripts that run from /usr/local/etc/rc.d run exactly as expected, on all machines, and I am happy to only change them in one place to have the whole farm "just work". In all this, there is but one kludge - the dhcpd startup script just exits if run on any host other than the one hardcoded in the script. I would imagine that this setup is not unique to me - but it relies on having the startup scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d; I gladly accept criticism on this (e.g. this setup is dumb, here's a better way to do it) or explanations why startup scritps for packages in /etc will not break the setup above. But please don't offer me to also start NFS mounting /etc/local; /var/db/pkg is already annoying enough. Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040817145137.M47203>