From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Sep 28 11:44:28 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id LAA24325 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 11:44:28 -0700 Received: from healer.com (healer-gw.Empire.Net [205.164.80.204]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA24245 for ; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 11:43:44 -0700 Received: (from gryphon@localhost) by healer.com (8.6.11/8.6.9.1) id OAA25004; Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:46:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:46:35 -0400 From: Coranth Gryphon Message-Id: <199509281846.OAA25004@healer.com> To: peter@taronga.com, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk From: Terry Lambert > > > 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. You're either not paying attention to the makefile proposal, or failing to see obvious parallels. Creating the symlink from rcN.d to init.d is the same as changing the name of the init chunk from "package.NO" to "package.mk" and running "makerc". If you don't, it is there, but does not run on startup. If you do, it runs on startup. What's the functional difference? -coranth ------------------------------------------+------------------------+ Coranth Gryphon | "Faith Manages." | | - Satai Delenn | Phone: 603-598-3440 Fax: 603-598-3430 +------------------------+ USMail: 3 Hansom Drive, Merrimack, NH 03054 Disclaimer: All these words are yours, except Europa...