From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 31 08:37:02 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99A441065678 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:37:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A40B150FB7; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 01:37:01 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111001 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dominic Fandrey References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 08:37:02 -0000 On 10/31/2011 00:38, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > 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. Yeah, that's what I said below. :) >> 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. That feature as it exists currently isn't even close to adequate, and is causing more problems than it solves. Hence the discussion. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/