Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 22:29:45 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, "J.R. Oldroyd" <fbsd@opal.com> Subject: Re: Use of rcorder for local rc.d/*.sh scripts Message-ID: <42AD19C9.2040403@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050613005533.GA28966@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20050607173741.GI11758@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050607191109.GU37208@linwhf.opal.com> <20050608233802.GA29707@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050609003459.GK37208@linwhf.opal.com> <20050609050517.GA28710@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <42A89CD7.1080404@FreeBSD.org> <20050609201017.GA10248@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <42A8A91B.8000402@FreeBSD.org> <20050609210223.GB16168@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050612121504.K844@ync.qbhto.arg> <20050613005533.GA28966@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis wrote:
> I don't like the idea of tagging all the scripts. First, it makes the
> update suck.
rm /etc/rc.d/* ; mergemaster -i
I understand that this mechanism is a little more invasive, but it uses the
existing rc.d framework without adding too much additional code. Also, using
keywords makes this really easy to work around, since keywords are harmless
if they aren't actually invoked.
> Second, that's a lot
> places to keep state up to date. JR's proposal of using a marker script
> had the downside of adding slightly more code to /etc/rc, but the
> advantage of not having to keep all the files in the right place.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot of places to keep state." This is a
one-time modification, and any scripts that we need to add to bootearly are
easily added. The disadvantage to a marker script is that if some other
dependency gets juggled in another script, the marker could run in a
different order. By using keywords we can be 100% sure what will happen in
each phase.
> The local_startup collector looks pretty good.
Thanks.
> I'm not 100% how I feel
> about the *.sample exception. On one hand it seems like the safest
> thing to do, on the other hand, it's the sort of feature that tends to
> hang on forever.
I would say that's accurate. :) I think that when we get farther down the
road of the conversion (and we can be sure that things won't start
accidentally if the user doesn't put the right things in
/etc/rc.conf[.local]) then we can carp on this more.
> I'd be slightly inclined to complain about .sample
> scripts that are executable to try and get people to stop installing
> them. We should almost certainly complain about script that aren't *.sh
> that are not executable. Effectivly those will all be all port bugs.
I agree, but my preference would be that we also hold off on this till we're
further down the road of the transition. I'm flexible on all this stuff
though, let me know what you think.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42AD19C9.2040403>