From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 17 21:58:15 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 1FF2A16A4CE; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:58:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postal3.es.net (postal3.es.net [198.128.3.207]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F417C43D41; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:58:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal3.es.net (Postal Node 3) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:58:14 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 7CA575D04; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT) To: Scot Hetzel In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:20:06 CDT." <790a9fff04081710207a373e03@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 14:58:14 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20040817215814.7CA575D04@ptavv.es.net> cc: Jan Srzednicki cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg) 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: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 21:58:15 -0000 > Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:20:06 -0500 > From: Scot Hetzel > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:58:56 +0200, Jan Srzednicki wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:09:25AM -0500, Scot Hetzel wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:08:12 +0200, Jan Srzednicki wrote: > > > > > > > > That's why my suggestion would be: /etc/rc.d/local/ (or > > > > /etc/rc.d/ports/, or whatever you want to call it). In this way you can > > > > easily separate both directories, and as new-style ports rc-scripts have > > > > to be placed in the new location, there is absolutely no confusion about > > > > them. Old scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d would be run with localpkg as > > > > they have been before. > > > > > > > Except this breaks for people who are NFS mounting /usr/local from > > > another machine, as the startup scripts are on the machine where the > > > port was originally installed, instead on in local/etc/rc.d. Which is > > > one of the purposes of putting them into local/etc/rc.d in the first > > > place. > > > > That can easily be fixed by a global make option (in /etc/make.conf) > > that would not install anything in /etc/rc.d/local/ and use old-style > > /usr/local/etc/rc.d, even if the system supports /etc/rc.d/local/. So it > > brings us to two make options - INSTALL_RCD and IGNORE_INSTALL_RCD (just > > a naming suggestion). /etc/rc.d/localpkg won't go away, so this seems to > > me to be a good solution. > > > There is still no need to have the ports system install the startup > scripts into /etc/rc.d/ or /etc/rc.d/local. If you have a look at the > NetBSD ports startup scripts, at the top of each script is a comment > that says to move the file.sh to /etc/rc.d/file, if you wish to have > them participate in rcorder. > > It is best to leave the moving of these scripts up to the individual > administrator. Only if mergemaster is fixed! -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634