Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 19:23:01 +0200 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@FreeBSD.org> To: stan <stanb@panix.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: start/stop script woes: ./squid.sh: Cannot determine the PREFIX Message-ID: <20030902172301.GA3812@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> In-Reply-To: <20030902165906.GA22637@teddy.fas.com> References: <20030901161847.GA4451@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <3F53E1DE.1080800@ciam.ru> <20030902045110.GA14187@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <20030902155848.GA21140@teddy.fas.com> <20030902164941.GA3147@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <20030902165906.GA22637@teddy.fas.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 12:59:06PM -0400, stan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:49:41PM +0200, Andreas Klemm wrote: > > Well, I think we should keep one scheme, not two. > > Currently there exist two methods to prevent startup of > > applications after reboot: > > a) no execute bit > > b) installed as xxx.sh.something > > Right. > > > > > Two are too much. I think the execute bit should be set and > > scripts should be installed as xxx.sh.sample. > > > I, also agree that 2 are too many. What I was saying is that I prefer a > over b. Supposed you put $PREFIX/etc/rc.d into root's search path or if you are in the directory $PREFIX/etc/rc.d then b) would have the advantage, that you can simply use the start/stop script even if its disabled (by name xxx.sh.sample) for the boot process. xxx.sh.sample (start|stop|restart) would work for the first tests. I think this is more comfortable without loosing the level of control you want after having installed the application port freshly. Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030902172301.GA3812>