Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:07:29 +0000 From: "Chad J. Milios" <milios@ccsys.com> To: Jim Riggs <freebsd-lists@christianserving.org>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, hrs@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] multiple instance support in rc.d script Message-ID: <54480071.9040004@ccsys.com> In-Reply-To: <685F1351-19A9-47F8-8119-AD6FAE903B10@christianserving.org> References: <20141017.102259.2303779237508789020.hrs@allbsd.org> <685F1351-19A9-47F8-8119-AD6FAE903B10@christianserving.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/22/14 17:02, Jim Riggs wrote: > On 16 Oct 2014, at 20:22, Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> I would like your feedback and testers of the attached patch. This >> implements multiple instance support in rc.d scripts. You can try it >> by replacing /etc/rc.subr with the attached one. > > > I really like the idea, as I have written at least 2 or 3 ports in which I have needed support for multiple "profiles" (as I have seen them called in several ports). So, I had to duplicate the multiple-instance logic in the rc script for each. This would save all of that aggravation. > > The only concern I have with generalizing the approach in rc.subr, though, is that not every app/daemon/script can or should support it. I worry that some things if run multiple times may stomp on each other or corrupt data or break something. It seems that there should be a way for each rc script to either opt in or opt out of multiple instance support. I don't know which is better. Opt-in is probably safer, but then core devs and port maintainers have to make specific changes to support it. :-\ > > Thoughts? Opt-in please
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54480071.9040004>