Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 02:42:51 -0600 From: "Scot Hetzel" <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: "Chuck Robey" <chuckr@chuckr.org> Cc: FreeBSD-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports modifying system setups Message-ID: <790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju> References: <4740E430.9050901@chuckr.org> <20071119031336.GA73804@k7.mavetju>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/18/07, Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form
> > 'portname_enable="YES"', and this would make your new port operate.
> > Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer
> > the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed
> > to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather
> > obvious workaround?
>
> I don't recall this behavior at all, I think you're confused with
> the messages which ports print at the end of the install-phase which
> say "Add 'foo_enable="YES"'" to your /etc/rc.conf to enable this
> port.
>
Edwin is correct that ports never had this behavior when they were
converted to the rc_ng startup script style, they always required the
system administrator to set the appropriate rc variable in
/etc/rc.conf.
Before rc_ng some scripts would automatically start on a reboot, while
others required copying the *.sh{-dist,-default,...} startup script to
one without the extentsion, as well as setting the execute bit.
This is probably what you are remembering.
Scot
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?790a9fff0711190042x73cd231cqbd643c39be2bd767>