From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 21 20:14:22 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C6E16A41A for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:14:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7EB2613C467 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:14:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 10693 invoked by uid 399); 21 Nov 2007 20:14:19 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2007 20:14:19 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <47449199.5000403@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:17 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071119) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scot Hetzel References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chuck Robey , FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports modifying system setups X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:14:23 -0000 Scot Hetzel wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: >>> activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form >>> 'portname_enable="YES"', and this would make your new port operate. >>> Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer >>> the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed >>> to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather >>> obvious workaround? > Edwin is correct that ports never had this behavior when they were > converted to the rc_ng startup script style, It's not "next generation" anymore, can we refer to it as rc.d instead please? :) As for Chuck's suggestion, I have for some time wanted to add support to rc.subr for a /usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d so that ports could install sensible defaults for rc.conf, and delete them when they are deinstalled. There was some objection to this idea on the freebsd-rc list when I suggested it though so I haven't pursued it. (I don't remember off hand what the objection was.) My idea is pretty simple, rc.subr already has support for /etc/rc.conf.d which allows for files with the same name as the name= attribute in the rc.d script to specify the settings for that service. I'd like to expand this to a local version that ports could write to on install. I think it would also be good to add an OPTION for "start on boot," which the user can enable before the _enable option is actually set to yes by the port. We can flesh this out in more detail if people are interested. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection.