From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 31 11:06:28 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 44D3A16A4CE; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:06:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp4.server.rpi.edu (smtp4.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B2D43D55; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:06:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp4.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i6VB62Md005910; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:06:03 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200407310912.i6V9CQVJ011571@the-macgregors.org> References: <200407310912.i6V9CQVJ011571@the-macgregors.org> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 07:06:01 -0400 To: "Rob MacGregor" , From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: RE: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts inports (without touching localpkg) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:06:28 -0000 At 10:12 AM +0100 7/31/04, Rob MacGregor wrote: > > -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org >> [mailto:owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of >> Oliver Eikemeier >> > > I don't think so. The patch is completely backwards compatible, > > which means everything will run as it did before. Why should > > anyone be confused by that? > >However, everybody who's used to disabling scripts by changing >the name such that it doesn't end in .sh is going to be badly >bitten by this. Suddenly all those "disabled" startup scripts >will run. > > > As stated above: everything users did before will continue to > > work. > >Except of course, disabling scripts by renaming them :) I seem to remember that the safe way to disable scripts was to change the permissions on them so they were not executable. This was considered better than renaming them, because the file remained at the location it was installed at. This meant it would still be removed if the package was removed, for instance. Is that no longer true? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu