Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 09:25:14 +0300 From: Sergei Kolobov <sergei@FreeBSD.org> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports startup scripts in /etc/rc.d (Re: 5.2-BETA and related ports issues) Message-ID: <20031201062514.GB704@chetwood.ru> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031130234018.74465G-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <20031201092813.X355@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031130234018.74465G-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2003-11-30 at 23:47 -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> (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.
I think this approach is fine for many installations, but it should be
used as the (only) solution to /etc/rc.d vs. ${LOCALBASE}/etc/rc.d problem.
=20
> (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.
This looks like the best approach to me.
=20
> (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.
This one reminds me of the /etc/opt in the FHS, although our current
structure with all non-base (ports) files under a common hierarchy is
more logical, IMHO. I do not think we should change that.
> (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.=20
No, please do not do that. ;)
> I'm actually leaning towards (2) as being the best solution, as it's easy
> and functional.
I fully agree - I support option 2 as the best approach.
Sergei
--4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQE/yt7KFOxuaTulNAERAu9rAJ0QsJ0/wlcPmMH80KHnZnjCKVMfjgCfZz7H
ZqP17dmYOxIVQCId5W+m1DU=
=l4ML
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--4SFOXa2GPu3tIq4H--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031201062514.GB704>