Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:25:48 -0500 From: Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@mindspring.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: "Maxim M. Kazachek" <stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru> Subject: Re: Ports startup scripts in /etc/rc.d (Re: 5.2-BETA and related ports issues) Message-ID: <3FCAD0DC.9090104@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031130234018.74465G-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031130234018.74465G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson wrote: > For 5.2-CURRENT, I think we should revisit this issue with one of the > following conclusions winning out, and the rest being discarded as > flame-bait: > > (1) Combine / and /usr into a single file system by default, and add > /usr/local/etc/rc.d to the search order, with appropriate hacks to > handle old-style scripts. The devil will be in the bikeshed, but the > implementation is easy, except for the bit where we explain that > NFS-mounted /usr/local won't work too well. > > (2) Reevaluate the order at routine points in the boot where new scripts > might now be available (due to file system mounts or whatever). > Essentially "insert the new cards into the deck, and shuffle". This > requires rethinking of our current approach, which assumes a static > order is created once at the start of the boot by rcorder(8). The > devil will be in the big picture *and* the details of the > implementation. > > (3) Add /local/etc/rc.d or /local/rc.d or /etc/local/rc.d or the like, a > new directory that third party applications are allowed to modify > during install, and that will be present for the creation of the > static ordering by rcorder(8) early in the boot. The devil will be in > the bikeshed, but the implementation is easy. > > (4) Continue to ignore the issue and let some ports install into /etc/rc.d > and consider them unorthodox, incorrect, but something we can > overlook. The devil isn't here, or at least, if it is, we'll overlook > it. > > I'm actually leaning towards (2) as being the best solution, as it's easy > and functional. > > Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects > robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research I think this message sums up the options quite nicely. I like option 2 the best, with option 3 a close second. I think either would be an acceptable compromise. Option 1 abandons the ability for read-only /usr, which many people like. That and the NFS problems that Robert mentioned should rule this out. But I like anything over doing nothing (option 4). Richard Coleman richardcoleman@mindspring.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FCAD0DC.9090104>