From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 20 05:58:31 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 91A6D16A4CE; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 05:58:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E51FF43D1F; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 05:58:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) i1KDwNrQ000909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1KDwFuL067375 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i1KDwEc5069413; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:15 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i1KDwB3d069412; Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:11 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: Freddie Cash Message-ID: <20040220135811.GM44313@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <87y8qywx47.fsf@gray.impulse.net> <49331.207.23.164.8.1077228664.squirrel@mailtest.sd73.bc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49331.207.23.164.8.1077228664.squirrel@mailtest.sd73.bc.ca> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.2-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.61 X-Spam-Report: * -4.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on cicely5.cicely.de cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Feature Request: /usr/local/etc/rc.conf support X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:58:31 -0000 On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:11:04PM -0800, Freddie Cash wrote: > Just curious why everyone is trying to come up with such complex > solutions to this issue. > > Everything else is split along the lines of base <---> ports. Why > should this be any different?? There's an etc/ directory for the base > system, and an etc/ directory for the ports. The beauty of this > system is that ports don't muck around in the base system (with the > exception of the few that support and override_base option). The nice about having this in /etc is that this is a machine directory, while /usr/local might be shared over multiple machines. The fact that most /usr/local/rc.d scripts start unconditionally without checking rc.conf legitimation first always frustrated me. BTW the fact that a lot of port rc.d scripts just do a start when called stop is more frustrating. Nevertheless I think defining anything is much better than the current situation of having mixed handling. > It's really annoying to have to keep changing between /usr/local/etc/ > to edit configuration files, and /etc/ to enable daemons that are > started by scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/. /usr/local/etc is not so much a problem, because you relocate them for binaries that won't start without beeing confirgured first. In the same way a /usr/local/etc/rc.conf would hurt as long as /etc/rc.conf is included as well and ports don't put active entries in them. A port upgrade is always a problem in shared environment, because they often add global start scripts - I don't like to see automatically enabled or disabled services in /usr/local/etc/rc.d then. > There's an rc.conf for the base system, why not an rc.conf for the > ports? Why does a port have to modify anything in the base system's > etc/? You can locally have what you want - just add another rc.conf in your local configuration. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de