Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 07:54:45 -0700 From: patl@asimov.volant.org To: gryphon@healer.com, terry@lambert.org Cc: hackers@freebsd.org, jmb@kryten.atinc.com, peter@taronga.com Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <9509271454.AA02380@asimov.volant.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
|> > True. But consider what happens if you then install something that |> > has a startup dependancy on having an SMTP server running. If it |> > is using a fixed sequence number, it doesn't care what the SMTP |> > server is called; it just assumes that any replacement will use the |> |> The makefile concept done a little carefully takes care of this: |> |> We have the mail depenendcy be |> |> smtp-daemon: sendmail $SENDMAIL_ARGS |> |> package: smtp-daemon |> |> Now it doesn't care what the smtp-daemon target does, as long as |> it executes successfully. (This assume compatibility between the |> two different SMTP daemons for package purposes, but if you don't |> have that the point is moot anyway). I think I missed some of the details of the Makefile proposal. How does a package install it's make dependancies? Does it add lines to the makefile, or is the makefile dynamically generated by concatenating a bunch of small per-service make fragments? If it adds lines to the makefile, it still suffers from the auto-edit safty concerns that the straight control file scheme does. (Although it does eliminate the concerns about getting the order right.) If it includes a bunch of small fragments, that seems like an unnecessary extra complication. And I think that either the file-name-ordering or straight-control-file scheme would make it easier to quickly review which services are started in what order than any make-based scheme. (But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.) -Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9509271454.AA02380>