From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Sep 28 10:46:40 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id KAA22287
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:46:40 -0700
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA22278
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:46:37 -0700
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA12874; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:42:36 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199509281742.KAA12874@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: ports startup scripts
To: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:42:36 -0700 (MST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509281234.HAA06384@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at Sep 28, 95 07:34:28 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 672       
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> > I think my biggest objection is that it requires install-time configuration
> > administration as part of the install.
> 
> Why do you say that? You can just install a prebuilt canned makefile or
> whatever. And startup is no special case... there are all sorts of files
> that could be usefully built the same way (ttys, gettydefs, inetd.conf, ...)

Because the installation *is* the activation of the package.  I think
that install and activation should be held seperate.  Hence my support
for the rc[0-6].d/symlink -> init.d.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.