From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 16 15:16:29 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9D8416A4CE; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:16:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from fillmore.dyndns.org (port-212-202-50-15.dynamic.qsc.de [212.202.50.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643B043D49; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:16:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com) Received: from dhcp-14.local ([172.16.0.14] helo=dhcp-5.local) by fillmore.dyndns.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.40 (FreeBSD)) id 1BlURl-000D9u-S0; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:16:28 +0200 Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:17:14 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) To: Mike Makonnen From: Oliver Eikemeier In-Reply-To: <20040716144112.GA10133@rogue.acs-et.com> Message-Id: <38080924-D73B-11D8-8DBE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: localpkg script changes X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:16:29 -0000 Mike Makonnen wrote: > The rc.d style ports scripts' behaviour diverge from that of base system > rc.d scripts. The main culprit is not enough communication among rc.d > developers and ports developers. Now, here we go... > That does not mean that we should change > the relatively stable/expected behaviour of rc.d to accomodate ports > rc.d > behaviour which is still in a relative state of flux. What do you mean with `in a relative state of flux'? Could you please elaborate what you would expect before you would describe rc.d for ports as stable? > I'll bring this up with re, and portmgr, and see what they have to say. My 2 eurocents: Add at least ports-developers to the discussion. The discussion could only benefit from the input of some experienced porters. >> I think we should introduce this before 5-STABLE, especially since the >> current estimated time frame gives us enough room for testing. [...] > > It's not as simple as that. Besides the security implications there are > also > many possible corner cases. To name just a couple: diskless, / (root > partition), > /usr/local, /usr/X11R6 on different partitions or even mounted > remotely, etc... I can't see any security implications here, and when you manage to get things working diskless, I can't see any problems when /usr/local and /usr/X11R6 are on different partitions... Could you just name some *real* problems instead of just stating that it is `difficult', so that we can start to work on them? > How is rc(8) going to handle all these possible scenarios. It's > possible, > but it's not trivial. And this close to 5-STABLE is not the time to > start > experimenting with it. If you feel otherwise, then separate this > particular > issue out from your patch and post to -arch. I feel otherwise, see my last post. Also, since ports are concerned, I believe ports@ is the right list for this. I think not many porters read arch@, and nobody reads rc@. > P.S. - STOP TRIMMING FREEBSD-RC OUT OF THE CC LIST! Your wish is my command. Anyway, changes on localpkg mostly affect ports, not the rc.subr system. I don't like cross-posting, but since the noise level on rc@ is nearly zero I guess nobody there will mind. -Oliver