From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 31 07:58:22 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 87A0E1065672; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:58:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.server1.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [82.193.243.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8C08FC14; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:58:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (HSI-KBW-091-089-161-008.hsi2.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [91.89.161.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.server1.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9800B860DD; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:38:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:38:29 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111006 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten 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: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 07:58:22 -0000 On 31/10/2011 07:28, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/27/2011 09:27, Scott Lambert wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:15:00AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: >>> 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. >> >> 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. >> > > > I think Scott's on the right track. The way that I envision it working > would be a 3-knob system. One knob to always restart the services, one > to never do it; and then asking on a per-port basis, which should be the > default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-build > phase similarly to how it detects and warns about IS_INTERACTIVE now, > and giving the user a menu of options for how to handle it. I'm happy to > add more details if people are interested. I think this should be handled in the pkg-install script. Pkg based upgrade tools _do_ exist. > Where this actually becomes interesting is not in the ports > build/install process, which is pretty easy to deal with, but with > package installs/deinstalls. I definitely think it's doable, what we > probably want to do is put a knob for this in the port's Makefile, and > handle the stop/start for both the port and the package with a little > script that can be included in the package, and run with @exec and @unexec. Note the Porters' Handboock chapter 6.23.1. The knob to stop services is already there. > > > hth, > > Doug > -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?