Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:02:05 +0100
From: Oyvind Moll <oyvindmo@orakel.ntnu.no>
To: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ${PREFIX}/etc/defaults?
Message-ID: <20001213100205.A567@orakel.ntnu.no>
In-Reply-To: <20001213105547.A373@ringworld.oblivion.bg>; from roam@orbitel.bg on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 10:55:47AM %2B0200
References: <14898.15686.684993.235346@guru.mired.org> <20001213000550.B74111@dragon.nuxi.com> <20001213105547.A373@ringworld.oblivion.bg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> | | On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 12:05:51AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: | > On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 08:10:14AM -0600, Mike Meyer wrote: | > > In contemplating building another port with a config file, I have to | > > wonder why ports don't use the same mechanism as the base system? | > > I.e. - why do I have /usr/opt/etc/healthd.conf.sample instead of | > > /usr/opt/etc/defaults/healthd.conf, | > | > Because binaries aren't flexable enough. | > Remember that everything in /etc/defaults is used by shell scripts. So | > it is trival to test for existance and source. | | If you're thinking about the /etc/defaults/rc.conf - /etc/rc.conf | relationship, where /etc/defaults/rc.conf is sourced *before* /etc/rc.conf | and the 'real' file in /etc only adds deltas - no, the OP was not proposing | such a thing; rather, the kind of /etc/defaults/make.conf - /etc/make.conf | relationship, where the defaults/ file is *never* used, and serves | only as a reference to build the real config file. With semantics subtly but deeply different from /etc/default, it should not be called /usr/local/etc/default, but rather /usr/local/etc/samples/ or something. -- Øyvind Møll <oyvindmo@initio.no> Initio IT-løsninger AS <URL: http://www.initio.no/ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001213100205.A567>