Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 17:17:14 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: localpkg script changes Message-ID: <38080924-D73B-11D8-8DBE-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040716144112.GA10133@rogue.acs-et.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?38080924-D73B-11D8-8DBE-00039312D914>