From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 31 12:31:56 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 A3C0A16A4CE; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:31:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de [212.202.50.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649AB43D31; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 12:31:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from dhcp-14.local ([172.16.0.14] helo=dhcp-11.local) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD)) id 1Bqt1L-000Ne1-B5; Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:31:29 +0200 Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 14:32:46 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) To: Garance A Drosihn From: Oliver Eikemeier In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: Rob MacGregor cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org cc: current@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 12:31:56 -0000 Garance A Drosihn wrote: > 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? No, that is probably the best solution. But a) some ports install their scripts as .sh.sample, so that they are not enabled by default, and some users obviously did just rename the scripts. It will be not easy, and error-prone to hunt all those instances down. Of course it's doable, and would be somewhat `cleaner', but I believe it's better when we keep the previously documented behaviour as far as possible. -Oliver