Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:17:41 -0600 From: Scot Hetzel <swhetzel@gmail.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org>, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Conflicting rc.d script and port dist directory Message-ID: <790a9fff0512171317y2999bdb8q1be0a6145e719e2a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051217210921.GF29053@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20051217201004.GA845@zaphod.nitro.dk> <1134850440.64549.0.camel@localhost> <20051217203912.GD29053@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <790a9fff0512171305j45b46593j683be6227366d71c@mail.gmail.com> <20051217210921.GF29053@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I don't see this as a hack. Any rc.d script placed in ${WORK}
> > directory should have the .sh extention to avoid conflicts with
> > similar named directories. When the port installs the rc.d script, it
> > should check OSVERSION to determine if the script should be
> > installed/not-installed with the .sh suffix.
>
> I guess that makes sense. It would be nice if we made up our minds what
> the source extension and variable values should be.
>
The FreeBSD project has made up their minds that from 7.0 forward,
rc.d scripts will be installed without the .sh suffix. They are also
working on getting this working for 6.1+, as long as it doesn't break
anything. Also we still need to support rc.d scripts for 4.x, 5.x and
6.0, so the .sh suffix needs to be appended for those systems.
Scot
--
DISCLAIMER:
No electrons were mamed while sending this message. Only slightly bruised.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?790a9fff0512171317y2999bdb8q1be0a6145e719e2a>