Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:22:24 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509201722.KAA01118@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199509201159.EAA04965@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> from "Satoshi Asami" at Sep 20, 95 04:59:24 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As I re-read the archive of the previous discussion, here are the > proposals and arguments for/against them: > > (1) /etc/rc.d > > - Ports shouldn't touch anything in the root filesystem > + Central location, easy to maintain > + Per-machine configuration possible even if /usr/local is NFS shared [ ... ] > My opinion is that due to the first reasons on their respective lists, > options (2) and (3) are infeasible. I don't have any problem with > ports touching /etc (that directory is hardly sacred, and is one of > the things you need to backup during upgrades anyway) but since there > seems to be a large contingent of people who feel strongly against it, > I think it's wise to avoid option (1) too. Actually, I have no problem with ports touching /etc. The idea of a read-only root implies system templating. Well, installed software would then be installed on all systems that are derived from a particular template (via diskless or dataless mount). The only issue not resolved by this is the idea of that read-only mount being done from a CDROM (ie: the boot from CD case). For drop-in install of package requiring daemons or overall system state, a hybrid of options (1) and (2) would seem the best bet. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509201722.KAA01118>