Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:11:18 -0600 From: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-rc] Re: RFC: Removal of the old rc system from -current Message-ID: <3EAB7486.2060107@btc.adaptec.com> In-Reply-To: <20030426223810.Y657@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <20030426154030.M13476@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <3EAB12AC.8050707@btc.adaptec.com> <20030426223810.Y657@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Scott Long wrote:
>
>
>>Doug,
>>
>>I totally understand and support the issues with maintenance. I do,
>>however, have a couple of questions:
>>
>>1. Have all ports been preened of dependence on rcOG?
>
>
> To my knowledge, there are no such dependencies. There's nothing in OG for
> the port scripts to utilize, like there is with rc.subr in NG. The only
> thing that the ports (should) depend on is the fact that the scripts in
> /usr/local/etc/rc.d/*.sh will get started, and that works in NG.
>
Great!
>
>>2. What about 3rd party software that is not in ports?
>
>
> Once again, to my knowledge there are no such dependencies, but if someone
> has examples I'll be glad to take a look.
>
Fair enough
>
>>Would it be possible and acceptable to officially deprecate rcOG in 5.1
>>and then remove it sometime in June or July? I understand that this
>>extends the maintenance of rcOG a tiny bit, but it will also help users
>>and vendors transition.
>
>
> My concern is that since we'll have a LOT more adopters of 5.1 than there
> were of 5.0, waiting would only increase the confusion. Also, they've had
> 7 months of rcNG being the default to catch any problems that might have
> cropped up.
>
> Unless someone comes up with a concrete case of "X is/will be broken," I'd
> like to move forward with this plan.
>
There's a big difference between, "dougb and friends no longer support
nor commit to rcOG, it's going away so don't use it" and, "dougb and
friends just whacked rcOG". =-)
Invariably there are going to be people/vendors out there that are
abusing rcOG, have been lazy for the last 7 months and haven't adapted
their systems to rcNG, and will be highly cranky over rcOG disappearing.
Having a formal deprecation period gives these people some warning and
diminishes their ability to whine. =-)
Adding a big "if [ "${rc_ng}" = "NO" ]; then echo "rc_ng=NO is
deprecated, unsupported, and will go away in the next release"; fi" to
the scripts allows us to cover our rears, makes everyone happy, and lets
you all off the hook for providing rcOG support. If you want to remove
the bits from CVS the moment that HEAD opens up after the 5.1-BETA
freeze, that's fine by me.
Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EAB7486.2060107>