Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 22:03:27 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: 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: <20110107030327.GC21582@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <20110107030123.GB21582@atarininja.org> References: <4D243672.4040803@douglasthrift.net> <4D266320.2020803@FreeBSD.org> <20110107030123.GB21582@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:01:23PM -0500, Wesley Shields wrote:
> 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.
Forgot to mention... Could you please submit a PR for this so that it
does not end up lost?
-- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110107030327.GC21582>