From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Sep 8 8:27:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (sentinel.office1.bg [217.75.135.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AF71337B403 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 08:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 1264 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Sep 2001 15:27:16 -0000 Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:27:16 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Startup scripts configuration [Was: Re: ports/30274: isc-dhcp3 port out of date] Message-ID: <20010908182716.C840@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Now why in the world would I CC this to GNATS instead of -ports.. G'luck, Peter -- This sentence was in the past tense. ----- Forwarded message from Peter Pentchev ----- From: Peter Pentchev To: Cyrille Lefevre Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Startup scripts configuration [Was: Re: ports/30274: isc-dhcp3 port out of date] In-Reply-To: <200109081520.f88FKlg15482@gits.dyndns.org>; from clefevre@citeweb.net on Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 05:20:47PM +0200 On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 05:20:47PM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > Peter Pentchev wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 12:00:14AM -0700, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > > The following reply was made to PR ports/30274; it has been noted by GNATS. > [snip] > > > files/isc-dhcpd.sh.sample > > > enhanced a lot to read startup options from > > > etc/rc.isc-dhcpd.conf. > > > program and config files checking added. > > > messages logged through syslog. > > > > And once again, this makes me wonder: would it not be better to have > > a common way of having ports' startup scripts - and local startup scripts, > > in general - read configuration from a single source? > > how do you handle adding/removing/upgrading per-port specific > sections in a single file ? for example, I make the use of > ${PREFIX}/etc/rc..conf to keep parameters over upgrades > instead of putting them (except defaul values) in ${PREFIX}/etc/rc.d/... > putting them in a single file complicates things a lot. well, > maybe ${PREFIX}/etc isn't the best place for them (how about > ${PREFIX}/etc/rc.conf.d a la HP-UX ?), but single config files > for ports aren't applicable so easily. How about not force this upon the user, and let the user make her own choice about whether to keep everything in a single file, or use here-documents to source all the per-program config files? :) A single file lets you use here-documents to divide up your config; multiple config files do not let you keep all the configuration in a single place (like I really, really like to do). ----- End forwarded message ----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message