Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:19:49 +0400 From: Alex Kapranoff <kappa@rambler-co.ru> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d ports scripts(without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <20040729131949.GA39464@capella.park.rambler.ru> In-Reply-To: <4108B7C5.5000802@fillmore-labs.com> References: <4108B7C5.5000802@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> [July 29 2004, 12:39]: > I'm not sure if we should filter out *all* scripts with extensions. > There might be a startup.app port we like to add, perhaps just a list of > values like `.old', `.sample' e.t.c. should be filtered out. OTOH this > is easily changeable, should the need arise. And startup.app port can easily be started with startup_app script, This is a non-issue, I think. > which will install `apache' or `apache.sh' depending on OSVERSION. A > variable RC_SUFX is set that could be used in pkg-message or other > places when necessary. The need for two versions of startup scripts for each port is highly undesirable. There should be some shims for 4.x systems, I suppose, for them to be able to execute extensionless rc.d scripts in simple lexicographic order (and missing all the rcorder benefits). > Sourcing port scripts is not possible with this patch, which is a good > thing IMHO. Also some documentation needs to added to rc(8) before this > patch can go in. I like the patch and would like it to go into the tree instead of Mike Makonnen's solution. Sourcing 3rd party (ports) scripts into the shell which performs global system startup procedures worries me. -- Alex Kapranoff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040729131949.GA39464>