Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:26:14 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Conflicting rc.d script and port dist directory Message-ID: <43A52B36.50701@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <790a9fff0512171305j45b46593j683be6227366d71c@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051217201004.GA845@zaphod.nitro.dk> <1134850440.64549.0.camel@localhost> <20051217203912.GD29053@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <790a9fff0512171305j45b46593j683be6227366d71c@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Scot Hetzel wrote:
>>> Simon L. Nielsen pí?e v so 17. 12. 2005 v 21:10 +0100:
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> I'm in the process of adding an rc.d script to the security/isakmpd
>>>> port, but I have run into a problem.
>>>>
>>>> I have added "USE_RC_SUBR= isakmpd" to the port Makefile and created
>>>> the rc.d script as files/isakmpd.in.
>>>>
>>>> The isakmpd distfile extracts the source to isakmpd/ in the the work
>>>> directory, which the conflicts with the rc.d script generation
>>>> (SUB_FILES), since it tries to create ${WRKDIR}/${file} as a file.
Simon, I ran into this working on the compat[45]x ports, FYI. I'm sorry you
ran into the same problem, but it tells me that this is a bigger problem
than I first thought it would be, so it needs a more comprehensive solution.
For now, you're safe naming the file isakmpd.sh.in.
> I don't see this as a hack. Any rc.d script placed in ${WORK}
> directory should have the .sh extention to avoid conflicts with
> similar named directories. When the port installs the rc.d script, it
> should check OSVERSION to determine if the script should be
> installed/not-installed with the .sh suffix.
We had a good discussion about this topic on freebsd-rc Friday night, here's
what I'm thinking. In a world way down the road when both the ports and base
infrastructures are updated, and all the ports with boot scripts are fixed,
we'll likely revert the change which runs all scripts in a subshell, and
restore the differentiation between scripts named foo, and those named
foo.sh. Namely that the latter will be sourced into the rc shell, and the
former run in a subshell. We'd like to have this same facility available to
port authors, as there may be a good reason for a port to do this. Thus, we
want to be able to support both ways of installing boot scripts for ports.
Still thinking down the road, I think what we want is for the file in files/
to be named <filename>.in, with <filename> as whatever the port wants to be
installed as, foo, or foo.sh. The file that goes in WRKDIR should probably
be named something like <filename>.out, rather than just <filename>,
regardless of what the filename wants to be. Then, the ports infrastructure
can take <filename>.out and install it. If it's being installed on a
pre-local_startup-MFC system, it should always be installed as foo.sh. If
it's on a post local_startup system, it should be installed as either foo or
foo.sh based on <filename>.in.
If we agree that this is where we want to end up, then we have to decide how
we want to get there. I would suggest that we make the change to
$WRKDIR/<filename>.out immediately (or whatever suffix y'all want to use).
Then we can start fixing the filenames in all the ports that already have
USE_RC_SUBR. Then we can go to work on the ports that haven't been converted
yet. At some point in this equation we have to add the code to bsd.port.mk
that determines whether to install foo or foo.sh based on OSVERSION, but I'm
not as concerned about the timing of that change because the base rc code
already runs everything in a subshell, and so far I haven't heard anyone
clamoring to run a foo.sh script that gets sourced into the shell.
I hope that this is useful. I'm sure that there are still some more corner
cases that need to be worked out, but I'm excited that we're making progress.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43A52B36.50701>