From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 27 16:55:01 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215591065677 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) Received: from sysmon.tcworks.net (sysmon.tcworks.net [65.66.76.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E05C88FC12 for ; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:55:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sysmon.tcworks.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sysmon.tcworks.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p9RGRGbu002704; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:27:16 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) Received: (from lambert@localhost) by sysmon.tcworks.net (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id p9RGRFVY002702; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:27:15 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from lambert@lambertfam.org) X-Authentication-Warning: sysmon.tcworks.net: lambert set sender to lambert@lambertfam.org using -f Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:27:15 -0500 From: Scott Lambert To: Ed Schouten Message-ID: <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> Mail-Followup-To: Ed Schouten , ports@FreeBSD.org References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/162049: The Ports tree lacks a framework to restart services 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: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:55:01 -0000 On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:15:00AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > Hi folks, > > As crees@ suggested, I'm sending an email to ports@ about this. > > What really bothers me when I use the FreeBSD Ports tree on one of my > systems, is that the behaviour of dealing with services is quite > inconsistent. > > My question is whether anyone has ever attempted to improve the > integration with rc-scripts? In the PR I propose something along these > lines: > > We know exactly which ports install rc scripts (USE_RC_SUBR). > Why not run `/usr/local/etc/rc.d/${FOO} status' and > `/usr/local/etc/rc.d/${FOO} stop' prior to installation. Based > on the return value of the first, we can run > `/usr/local/etc/rc.d/${FOO} start' after installation. If all of that is contingent upon a boolean knob the admin can set, something like NO_RESTART_SERVICES, I suspect everyone could get what they want and the bikeshed would be limitted to what the default for that boolean should be. The people who don't want the services restarted automagically can set it and, once things use the new ports framewoork properly, not have to worry about suprises. The people who want everything to restarted as soon as possible can set the knob the other way. It could help keep our less sophisticated users from continuing to run vulerable versions of software after they think they have done what is needed to get the patched software. The sophisticated users would still be free to choose which foot to shoot. A side effect might, eventually, be to encourage ports maintainers to analyse their ported software for incompatible config changes so that they can programatically halt the install and output a warning message before attempting to stop the old daemon then upgrading while a likely un-usable config is in place. I see it as win, win, if there is a knob. I do not like either option without a knob, depending on the box we are talking about. -- Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin lambert@lambertfam.org