From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 17 01:51:25 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0490416A420 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:51:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mail2.fluidhosting.com [204.14.90.12]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E0E9143D53 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:51:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 24943 invoked by uid 399); 17 Dec 2005 01:51:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.3?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Dec 2005 01:51:18 -0000 Message-ID: <43A36F14.1050804@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:51:16 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu References: <43A33C0E.9050100@FreeBSD.org> <20051217000418.GC851@zaphod.nitro.dk> <43A35FA5.4050202@FreeBSD.org> <20051217031024.60912c94@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <43A36C4F.4010005@FreeBSD.org> <20051217034304.5ed69ef1@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <20051217034304.5ed69ef1@it.buh.tecnik93.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, "Simon L. Nielsen" Subject: Re: Should etc/rc.d/ike move to ports? X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 01:51:25 -0000 Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:39:27 -0800 > Doug Barton wrote: > >> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: >> >>> Better use: >>> USE_RC_SUBR= ike >>> and put the script in files/ike.in >>> >>> Currently this will perform some substitutions on the script >>> (PREFEIX, etc.) and install it as ike.sh >> Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that a .in vs. .sh.in was already >> working :) > > Now: > USE_RC_SUBR= name.sh.in --> name.sh > USE_RC_SUBR= name.in --> name.sh > Then: > USE_RC_SUBR= name.sh.in --> name.sh > USE_RC_SUBR= name.in --> name > > Is this not what we want ? For the Now part, yes. For the Then part, the important factor is whether the system is past the local_startup MFC or not. If not, then we always want to install as name.sh, otherwise the script won't run. If so, then we want to install as just name. There is also the factor of how to deal with a port that has a legitimate need to install as name.sh in the post MFC world, which would mean (after all the ports are fixed) that its boot script gets sourced into the rc environment, rather than run in a subshell. I'd organize Then like this: Pre-MFC system: USE_RC_SUBR= * --> name.sh Post-MFC system: USE_RC_SUBR= name.in --> name (this will be the common case) USE_RC_SUBR= name.sh.in --> name.sh Make sense? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection