Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 15:20:03 -0700 From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) To: gryphon@healer.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509272220.PAA10951@forgery.CS.Berkeley.EDU> In-Reply-To: <199509262239.SAA18408@healer.com> (message from Coranth Gryphon on Tue, 26 Sep 1995 18:39:52 -0400)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Coranth Gryphon <gryphon@healer.com>
* I proposed an mechanism that edits (usually appends to) a master control
* file that defines startup order. People were vehemently opposed to
* any automated file editing.
>From what's going on here, I don't think we are ever going to agree to
change the overall startup scheme. ;)
* The second task is to write the util that takes this data and generates the
* config startup sequence. In this case, it becomes trivial to use either
* the "rc?.d" sym-linked subdirs, or the "rc.N" startup scripts.
Uhh, I don't think we want to go that far. I just want a way to start
the ports/packages, I have no intention to change how "rc" works, as
much as I love the SysV scheme of run-levels and (especially)
symlinked directories -- if you don't know what I mean, go to
/cdrom/ports/packages and do an "ls -RF". :)
Can we keep this simple? Just a single default target, and a Makefile
that essentially looks like:
# port1.mk
all:: port1
port1::
/etc/ports.d/port1.sh start
# port2.mk
all:: port2
port2:: port3
/etc/ports.d/port2.sh start
# port3.mk
all:: port3
port3::
/etc/ports.d/port3.sh start
after all the ".include"s are expanded. Here I'm assuming "port2"
depends on "port3".
One question is: can we start all the ports from one place in rc
(where we source rc.local now), or do some things have to be started
at different places? (If so, we need multiple targets.)
Satoshi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509272220.PAA10951>