Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:19:57 +0100 From: "Rob MacGregor" <freebsd.macgregor@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <current@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: RE: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts inports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <200407311019.i6VAJsVs031900@the-macgregors.org> In-Reply-To: <7EB1AC8B-E2D7-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Eikemeier [mailto:eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com] > > Nope, only two kinds of scripts will be run: old-style scripts with a > `.sh' extension, and new-style rc.d scripts without extension. So you > should not run into an trouble with scripts renamed to `.old' or > `.disabled', except when you got into the habit to *remove* the > extension to disable the scripts. Ok, I'm confused (but then I haven't had my coffee yet). You're saying that any script ending in .sh is assumed to be an old style one and processed that way. You're also saying that anything else is assumed to be a new style script, correct? However, then you say that renaming scripts (new or old?) will be fine, as long as you rename them to .old or .disabled - anything else will still be run as if it's a new style script? I just want to ensure that I don't get bit by this when it goes live :) -- Rob | Oh my God! They killed init! You bastards!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200407311019.i6VAJsVs031900>