Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 20:25:10 -0500 From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) To: hackers@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509220125.UAA07979@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <199509201159.EAA04965@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199509201159.EAA04965@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>,
Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>(1) /etc/rc.d
> - Ports shouldn't touch anything in the root filesystem
> + Central location, easy to maintain
> + Per-machine configuration possible even if /usr/local is NFS shared
+ Complete system configuration backed up by tarring /etc.
Though for that last, /var/db/pkg, /var/at/jobs, and /var/cron/tabs should
also be in /etc.
- Other ports configuration scripts are in /usr/local/{etc,lib}
[ aside: /var/db/pkg and so on are a problem. Just about everything else
in /var can safely be considered "volatile", you don't lose system
integrity by losing them... ]
I like /etc/rc.d for all sorts of reasons that you've all already seen.
>(2) /usr/local/etc/rc.d
> - Shouldn't fix certain location
> - If /usr/local is NFS shared, per-machine configuration is cumbersome
This is a problem anyway, since there are other per-machine config files
in /usr/local.
> - X ports (which have PREFIX=${X11BASE}) have no way to know where
> this tree is
X ports are a general problem... I really want them to be in /usr/local
as well. I wish Imake didn't use BIN to look for things like install.
>May I have your comments, ladies and gentlemen?
I prefer option 2. It doesn't break anything that's not broken already.
Option 4 is OK, but only because X ports are already broken.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509220125.UAA07979>