From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 6 21:04:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213ED16A420 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:04:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A52143D72 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2006 21:04:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 68241 invoked by uid 399); 6 Feb 2006 21:04:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.1.102?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Feb 2006 21:04:21 -0000 Message-ID: <43E7B9D3.4000204@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:04:19 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060112) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: trix@basement.net References: <43DD0997.3422.3D6D968C@dan.langille.org> <43DDE3CB.23838.6E6C5F@dan.langille.org> <43DF7CAF.2000501@basement.net> <43DF9F75.8020801@FreeBSD.org> <43DFAEBF.8010807@basement.net> <43E006A7.2050705@FreeBSD.org> <43E7A5A2.2010602@basement.net> In-Reply-To: <43E7A5A2.2010602@basement.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: bacula-server-1.38.5_1 rc scripts X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:04:25 -0000 Trix Farrar wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:53:59PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: >>> Trix Farrar wrote: >>>> Doug Barton wrote: >>> I presume that this file is in PREFIX/etc, not etc/rc.d, is that >>> right? Only the scripts themselves should be in the rc.d directory. >>> > > Yes, for production, that would be the case. The scripts I have > submitted are, admittedly, at the "proof of concept" stage. Ad the > scripts don't know where they might be running from at this point, > they look for their subroutines in the directory the script was > executed from. > > If they were to be included in the port, yes, they would be patched to > look for their subroutines in $PREFIX/etc, as you suggest. Great, thanks. >>>> In the same vein, the configuration options can all be read from a >>>> single /etc/rc.conf.d/bacula file. >>> That leads to an interesting question. Should we add support for a >>> local rc.conf.d directory? Very few services use this directory now, >>> so I've hesitated to tweak it, but theoretically support would be >>> easy to add, and would provide an easier way to set defaults for >>> more complex scripts (as you already know). >>> > > You mean it's not there already? Honestly, I haven't looked. I just > kind of assumed it would be there. Then again, I haven't used > /etc/rc.conf.d, either. I coded it into the script in an effort to be > functionally complete; in line with how everything else works. Well, I think I'm confused about something then. If you are saying that you wrote something special in your script to make sure that it supports /etc/rc.conf.d/bacula, you don't need to do that, /etc/rc.subr takes care of that for you if the user makes that choice. As for lack of support for /etc/rc.conf.d, it's not there now, but I don't know of any ports that use /etc/rc.conf.d now (nothing in the base uses it). Your message got me to thinking that adding support for this might be a cleaner way to allow ports to set defaults, clean up after themselves, etc. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection