From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 23 04:52:36 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F34D16A4CE; Sun, 23 May 2004 04:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp07.web.de (smtp07.web.de [217.72.192.225]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A46C643D2D; Sun, 23 May 2004 04:52:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kay_lehmann@web.de) Received: from lehmann.in-dsl.de ([217.197.85.240] helo=web.de) by smtp07.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (WEB.DE 4.101 #91) id 1BRrWc-0005Ql-00; Sun, 23 May 2004 13:52:18 +0200 Message-ID: <40B09066.1020300@web.de> Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 13:52:06 +0200 From: Kay Lehmann User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; de-AT; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040405 X-Accept-Language: de-de, de, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josef Karthauser References: <20040523101300.GA43113@genius.tao.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040523101300.GA43113@genius.tao.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kay_lehmann@web.de cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade and daemons. X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 11:52:36 -0000 Josef Karthauser wrote: > A number of ports run daemons, such as postfix, which are started in > /usr/local/tc/rc.d. Portupgrade doesn't appear to know anything about > these, and so it will quite happily attempt to upgrade a daemon that is > still running. Idealally it ought to DTRT, which I guess is some > combination of shutdow the existing port down, upgrade it and then > restart it. There are some rudiments of knowledge about rc.d/ scripts > built into the Mk subsystem so I wonder whether it's possible to hook > into that in some way. > > Thoughts welcome. > > Joe As far as I know this isn't the job of portupgrade. Normally it should be handeled by the port itself, which could stop daemons with appropriate set (de)install targets. I think a lot of the ports do this quite properly. Moving this to Mk looks quite complicated and I think it would be the best to leave it in the ports, since they should know what is required to do. Greets, Kay