Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:40:10 -0400 From: Christopher Nehren <apeiron@comcast.net> To: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <20040816174010.GA82600@prophecy.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20040816155653.GA2405@rogue.acs-et.com> References: <20040731155822.GB35674@rogue.acs-et.com> <2A78201C-E316-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040816155653.GA2405@rogue.acs-et.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:56:53 EDT, Mike Makonnen scribbled these curious markings: > I have thought about this considerably, and I think the best solution > is to have ports rc.d scripts installed to /etc/rc.d. One of the problems Please, no. This is in direct violation of hier(8), POLA, the concept of separating third-party packages from the base system, and it also pollutes the concept of a lean, clean, vendor-provided / file system. One of the things that I love about FreeBSD is that it doesn't make a mess of the base system like Linux does. If I wanted the mess that putting port scripts in /etc/rc.d would cause, I'd use Linux. ... well, maybe not. At the very least, I'd like the current way of doing things (Why does it need to be changed, anyway? The current way of doing things is quite close to perfect, IMHO.) to remain a viable option. And no, littering /etc/rc.d with symlinks is not the way to do it. If I wanted that, again, I'd go to Linux. Well, I'm fresh out of paint. If you'd like, you can take this message as a statement of how happy I am with FreeBSD :-). [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBIPF6k/lo7zvzJioRAgNvAJ42AT5SrNRIN0Yrl0sSITHzvaji0wCfftkB YnFu+y8jaQEy8kojwJcUjI0= =Sy6C -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040816174010.GA82600>