From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 16 18:15:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A22D16A4CF; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:15:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from postal2.es.net (postal2.es.net [198.128.3.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88C143D53; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:15:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oberman@es.net) Received: from ptavv.es.net ([198.128.4.29]) by postal2.es.net (Postal Node 2) with ESMTP (SSL) id IBA74465; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:15:01 -0700 Received: from ptavv (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ptavv.es.net (Tachyon Server) with ESMTP id 38B785D09; Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:15:01 -0700 (PDT) To: Christopher Nehren In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:40:10 EDT." <20040816174010.GA82600@prophecy.dyndns.org> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:15:01 -0700 From: "Kevin Oberman" Message-Id: <20040816181501.38B785D09@ptavv.es.net> cc: Oliver Eikemeier cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Mike Makonnen Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:15:02 -0000 > Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 13:40:10 -0400 > From: Christopher Nehren > Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org > > --/04w6evG8XlLl3ft > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 11:56:53 EDT, Mike Makonnen scribbled these > curious markings: > > I have thought about this considerably, and I think the best solution > > is to have ports rc.d scripts installed to /etc/rc.d. One of the problems > > Please, no. This is in direct violation of hier(8), POLA, the concept > of separating third-party packages from the base system, and it also > pollutes the concept of a lean, clean, vendor-provided / file > system. One of the things that I love about FreeBSD is that it doesn't > make a mess of the base system like Linux does. If I wanted the mess > that putting port scripts in /etc/rc.d would cause, I'd use Linux. > > ... well, maybe not. > > At the very least, I'd like the current way of doing things (Why does it need > to be changed, anyway? The current way of doing things is quite close to > perfect, IMHO.) to remain a viable option. And no, littering /etc/rc.d with > symlinks is not the way to do it. If I wanted that, again, I'd go to Linux. > > Well, I'm fresh out of paint. > > If you'd like, you can take this message as a statement of how happy I > am with FreeBSD :-). As a LONG time BSD user (since at least BSD4.1, I don't see a violation of POLA or of heir(7), although I expected that someone would claim it. /usr/local/etc is a very recent addition and is barely mentioned in heir(7) at all. The problem is that it defeats on of the purposes of /etc. It was (to the best of my recollection) for systems specific configuration files that might be needed when only / was mounted and in single-user mode when / was read-only. There are many local system mods that require configuration files and/or scripts be available prior to mounting of any file system. I do like a separation of local stuff, but it really, really should be in the physical root partition. (And I oppose the use of symlinks, as well. That's really ugly!) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634