Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:31:47 +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: <20040729143147.GA52939@capella.park.rambler.ru> In-Reply-To: <C95C0DE5-E168-11D8-B327-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> References: <20040729131949.GA39464@capella.park.rambler.ru> <C95C0DE5-E168-11D8-B327-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> [July 29 2004, 18:08]: > Alex Kapranoff wrote: > > 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). > > No, every port just has one version of a startup script, it is just > *installed* under a different name, depending on OSVERSION. The > borderline is not 4.x/5.x, it is before/after the patch (which enables > execution of extensionless rc.d scripts). The supporting code in > bsd.port.mk could install shims that enables newer 5.x packages to be > used on older systems, but I would prefer not to have them. Ah, now I understand. 4.x systems will get .sh scripts as will do old CURRENTs. No shims needed then (except for sysutils/rc_subr for rc_subrified scripts, but that's already implemented). > Thanks. Mike's patch sources scripts only into localpkg, so there is an > additional layer, yet they can influence each other (by erroneously Thanks for clarification. Indeed there's a layer. -- Alex Kapranoff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040729143147.GA52939>