Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 12:18:40 -0600 From: Robin Schoonover <end@endif.cjb.net> To: Christopher Nehren <apeiron@comcast.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <20040816181840.GA36843@rogue> In-Reply-To: <20040816174010.GA82600@prophecy.dyndns.org> References: <20040731155822.GB35674@rogue.acs-et.com> <2A78201C-E316-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040816155653.GA2405@rogue.acs-et.com> <20040816174010.GA82600@prophecy.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:40:10PM -0400, Christopher Nehren wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:56:53 EDT, Mike Makonnen scribbled these
> curious markings:
> > I have thought about this considerably, and I think the best solution
> > is to have ports rc.d scripts installed to /etc/rc.d. One of the problems
>
> Please, no. This is in direct violation of hier(8), POLA, the concept of
> separating third-party packages from the base system, and it also pollutes the
> concept of a lean, clean, vendor-provided / file system. One of the
> things that I love about FreeBSD is that it doesn't make a mess of the
> base system like Linux does. If I wanted the mess that putting port
> scripts in /etc/rc.d would cause, I'd use Linux.
>
ports tries to make it more difficult to place things outside of ${PREFIX}
for a reason. :)
--
Robin Schoonover (aka End)
# "The algorithm to do that is extremely nasty. You might want to mug
# someone with it."
# -- M. Devine, Computer Science 340
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040816181840.GA36843>