Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 13:44:20 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: gryphon@healer.com (Coranth Gryphon) Cc: peter@taronga.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509282044.NAA13277@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199509281846.OAA25004@healer.com> from "Coranth Gryphon" at Sep 28, 95 02:46:35 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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? Arbitration of the rename bases on dependencies existing vs. arbitration of the link based on explicit package activation (activation being denied if dependencies don't exist). The difference is whether you find out at boot time that you've been screwed or find out when you try to activate the package using the administrative tool that a dependency doesn't exist. Admittedly, you could make the makefile proposal multiple pass to get it to "do the right thing", but it would be inelegant and time consuming (at run time; programmer time is irrelevant). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509282044.NAA13277>