Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 08:33:32 -0500 From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFT] multiple instance support in rc.d script Message-ID: <1414071212.176533.182439477.59A47812@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <685F1351-19A9-47F8-8119-AD6FAE903B10@christianserving.org> References: <20141017.102259.2303779237508789020.hrs@allbsd.org> <685F1351-19A9-47F8-8119-AD6FAE903B10@christianserving.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014, at 12:02, Jim Riggs wrote: > On 16 Oct 2014, at 20:22, Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > I would like your feedback and testers of the attached patch. This > > implements multiple instance support in rc.d scripts. You can try it > > by replacing /etc/rc.subr with the attached one. > > > I really like the idea, as I have written at least 2 or 3 ports in which > I have needed support for multiple "profiles" (as I have seen them called > in several ports). So, I had to duplicate the multiple-instance logic in > the rc script for each. This would save all of that aggravation. > > The only concern I have with generalizing the approach in rc.subr, > though, is that not every app/daemon/script can or should support it. I > worry that some things if run multiple times may stomp on each other or > corrupt data or break something. It seems that there should be a way for > each rc script to either opt in or opt out of multiple instance support. > I don't know which is better. Opt-in is probably safer, but then core > devs and port maintainers have to make specific changes to support it. > :-\ > > Thoughts? > I would definitely prefer opt-in. We don't want to break things or lose users' data; POLA. After the feature is available users can request support if the maintainers aren't already working on it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1414071212.176533.182439477.59A47812>