Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:06:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>
To: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ${PREFIX}/etc/defaults?
Message-ID: <14903.40589.65717.291026@guru.mired.org>
In-Reply-To: <20001213000550.B74111@dragon.nuxi.com>
References: <14898.15686.684993.235346@guru.mired.org> <20001213000550.B74111@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> types:
> 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.
I didn't say so explicitly, but the idea isn't to force binaries to
duplicate that behavior, it's to provide a standard place to put
sample/default config files, etc. Shell scripts could duplicate the
behavior of /etc/defaults because it *is* trivial. Binaries would
either document the defaults while providing an example of the config
file, so that like /etc/defaults, all you needed to list in the
${PREFIX}/etc file are the changes; or they would provide a sample
file, and start with the instructions "Copy this file to ${PREFIX}/etc
and edit ....".
Thanx,
<mike
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?14903.40589.65717.291026>