Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:25:06 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: "Rob MacGregor" <freebsd.macgregor@blueyonder.co.uk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts inports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <A7CB730E-E2EC-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <200407311019.i6VAJsVs031900@the-macgregors.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rob MacGregor wrote: >> -----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? No, only scripts without any extension are assumed to be new-style rc.d. Everthing else is ignored. > 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? No, I propose that you ignore everthing that has a extension (a dot in its filename), except `.sh' scripts, which are considered to be old-style. > I just want to ensure that I don't get bit by this when it goes live :) Yup. It will be documented then. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A7CB730E-E2EC-11D8-9C56-00039312D914>