From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Sep 28 05:20:56 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id FAA12129
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 05:20:56 -0700
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with SMTP id FAA12121
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 05:20:53 -0700
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA15502
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for hackers@freebsd.org); Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:18:02 -0500
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id HAA05910 for hackers@freebsd.org; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:13:41 -0500
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Message-Id: <199509281213.HAA05910@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: ports startup scripts
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 07:13:40 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <9509271454.AA02380@asimov.volant.org> from "patl@asimov.volant.org" at Sep 27, 95 07:54:45 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 671       
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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?

The latter. I'm very much in favor of *whatever* scheme is used assembling
the startup/shutdown sequence and other control files from fragments. Either
directly by having the startup shell script run the files (the rc.d model)
or by having the package install process rebuild them.

I just want to get away from editing one big file that has a load of
unrelated packages *and* the administrator diddling it.