Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:25:51 -0800 From: Douglas Thrift <douglaswth@gmail.com> To: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Douglas Thrift <douglas@douglasthrift.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: isc-dhcp41-server-4.1.2,1; Concurrent IPv4 DHCP and DHCPv6 Message-ID: <4D27AF0F.6010405@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110107030327.GC21582@atarininja.org> References: <4D243672.4040803@douglasthrift.net> <4D266320.2020803@FreeBSD.org> <20110107030123.GB21582@atarininja.org> <20110107030327.GC21582@atarininja.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/6/2011 7:03 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:01:23PM -0500, Wesley Shields wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:49:36PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> On 01/05/2011 01:14, Douglas Thrift wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Since ISC dhcpd 4.1 now supports DHCPv6, but a single instance of the
>>>> daemon can't do both IPv4 DHCP and DHCPv6, it would be nice if the rc.d
>>>> script from the port could be configured to start the daemon twice. Has
>>>> anyone thought about this at all or implemented anything?
>>>
>>> I really dislike this trend that we're seeing of individual rc.d scripts
>>> supporting running multiple versions of the same daemon, but I haven't
>>> yet found the time to write it up for TPH. The canonical way to do this
>>> is for the rc.d script to have multiple copies of itself, and then do
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> name="${0##*/}"
>>>
>>> For this example you could have the port install rc.d/dhcpd by default
>>> (or whatever the name is, not suggesting a change), and an option to
>>> also install dhcpd_v6 (perhaps as a symlink). This would make it easy to
>>> clean up as the additional copy of the script should also be in the plist.
>>
>> I'm not a big fan of the same script running multiple versions of the
>> same daemon either. I do think the symlink and code above is a good
>> solution though.
>>
>>> The other reason I haven't squawked more about this is that for services
>>> that would like to be able to run an arbitrary number of the same daemon
>>> the servicename_N_{flags|pidfile|etc} method works, and eliminates the
>>> problem of leaving behind multiple numbers of the script after port
>>> deinstall. But for something like this where we're discussing a fixed
>>> (and small) number of copies it's better to have this done the "right" way.
>>
>> I didn't know servicename_N_foo existed. I still like the symlink
>> approach. I can certainly add that to the port in the future.
>
> Forgot to mention... Could you please submit a PR for this so that it
> does not end up lost?
>
> -- WXS
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
I've submitted a PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/153781
--
Douglas William Thrift
<douglaswth@gmail.com>
<http://douglasthrift.net/>;
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D27AF0F.6010405>