Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 01:10:09 +0200 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <6B9BDB86-EFD9-11D8-924A-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <20040816155653.GA2405@rogue.acs-et.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Makonnen wrote: > I have thought about this considerably, and I think the best solution > is to have ports rc.d scripts installed to /etc/rc.d. This is what I currently do with slapd, but this approach has multiple problems: - it violates the law that packages have to be PREFIX-clean, which has some very unfortunate consequences from a packaging point of view. - mergemaster barfs ever time (PR 64476) - you can not be sure that the script is not started before the needed filesystems are available. > One of the problems > with having them in a separate directory is that we don't know when > that directory will be available, so we have to order the scripts > in two phases: first /etc/rc.d and then the ports rc.d directory when > it is ready. If we do this then there is the REAL possiblity that > something may not get run the second time around. For example, let's > say that /etc/rc re-orders all the scripts (base and local) when it > hits the dummy script PORTS. Furthermore, after they are reordered we > skip the scripts that come before PORTS. The problem is that When the > scripts > are reordered if a particular script does not have a dependency on > PORTS (or > another script that requires PORTS) you are not guaranteed that if it > came > after PORTS the first time it will still be after ports after the second > reordering. No, my patch simply start from the beginning, leaving out every script that has already been executed. The worst thing that may happen is that a script may be executed too late, which should be ok (call it a wrong dependency in that case). So this is not a problem. > While you can have workarounds and introduce hacks around this > problem, I > think the general messiness and potential problems of ordering scripts > more than once makes it a bad solution. As written above: already solved. > Secondly, there is really no compelling reason that all ports be > ordered with the base scripts. If a port is of such a nature that it > needs to be started much earlier than it currently is, either the ports > should install the script automatically to /etc/rc.d or it should give > the user the option of choosing. As stated above: you violate PREFIX with that, which makes it a bad hack. > So, I think the best course of action is to convert all ports startup > scripts to rc.d format and either > a) install them all automatically to /etc/rc.d > b) leave it to the port maintainer to choose > c) leave it to the user to choose. There is no compelling reason *not* to let ports script participate in rcorder(8). > If we go with b or c, then /etc/rc.d/localpkg will need to learn to > order > rc.d scripts. I have a patch for that which is similar to the one I > committed > except that it has a list of the broken scripts which end in .sh that it > treats like old style scripts (this should preserve compatibility with > those > upgrading from an older release): > http://people.freebsd.org/~mtm/patches/localpkg.diff Hmmm.... I believe this list is not complete, besides it looks like a maintainance nightmare. -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6B9BDB86-EFD9-11D8-924A-00039312D914>