Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:01:23 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Douglas Thrift <douglas@douglasthrift.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: isc-dhcp41-server-4.1.2,1; Concurrent IPv4 DHCP and DHCPv6 Message-ID: <20110107030123.GB21582@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <4D266320.2020803@FreeBSD.org> References: <4D243672.4040803@douglasthrift.net> <4D266320.2020803@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:49:36PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 01/05/2011 01:14, Douglas Thrift wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Since ISC dhcpd 4.1 now supports DHCPv6, but a single instance of the
> > daemon can't do both IPv4 DHCP and DHCPv6, it would be nice if the rc.d
> > script from the port could be configured to start the daemon twice. Has
> > anyone thought about this at all or implemented anything?
>
> I really dislike this trend that we're seeing of individual rc.d scripts
> supporting running multiple versions of the same daemon, but I haven't
> yet found the time to write it up for TPH. The canonical way to do this
> is for the rc.d script to have multiple copies of itself, and then do
> something like:
>
> name="${0##*/}"
>
> For this example you could have the port install rc.d/dhcpd by default
> (or whatever the name is, not suggesting a change), and an option to
> also install dhcpd_v6 (perhaps as a symlink). This would make it easy to
> clean up as the additional copy of the script should also be in the plist.
I'm not a big fan of the same script running multiple versions of the
same daemon either. I do think the symlink and code above is a good
solution though.
> The other reason I haven't squawked more about this is that for services
> that would like to be able to run an arbitrary number of the same daemon
> the servicename_N_{flags|pidfile|etc} method works, and eliminates the
> problem of leaving behind multiple numbers of the script after port
> deinstall. But for something like this where we're discussing a fixed
> (and small) number of copies it's better to have this done the "right" way.
I didn't know servicename_N_foo existed. I still like the symlink
approach. I can certainly add that to the port in the future.
Thanks!
-- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110107030123.GB21582>