From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 18 18:02:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAC316A408 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36ABF43D5C for ; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:02:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [172.23.170.138] (helo=anti-virus01-09) by smtp-out4.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FVuWX-0006Ef-Ax; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:02:01 +0100 Received: from [80.192.25.195] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out2.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FVuWW-0005MH-LC; Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:02:00 +0100 Message-ID: <44452998.7070600@dial.pipex.com> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:02:00 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060305 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd@dfwlp.com References: <21537.208.11.134.3.1145377393.squirrel@mail.dfwlp.com> <441wvualx1.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <21818.208.11.134.3.1145378773.squirrel@mail.dfwlp.com> <444520BC.4060403@dial.pipex.com> <60221.24.1.139.244.1145381771.squirrel@mail.dfwlp.com> In-Reply-To: <60221.24.1.139.244.1145381771.squirrel@mail.dfwlp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: Curious behavior today X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:02:05 -0000 Jonathan Horne wrote: >well if its an official change in procedure, i have no problem with >adapting. the reason it raised my eyebrow today, aside from happening on >2 boxes at the same time, same daemons, but vsftpd did the same thing last >weekend when i compiled the port after latest cvsup. vsftpd needed to >vsftpd.sh for it to start at boot (with vsftpd_enable="YES" in >/etc/rc.conf). while i did not reboot my test boxes to see whether or not >dovecot and saslauthd did or did not start at boot without the .sh on >their scripts, it still wondered what was going on. > >i have several more additional daemons to compile in today, it will be >interesting to see their installation behavior as well. > > My understanding is that the changes were going to be done in a backwards-compatible way so if something didn't work "out-of-the-box" for you then there may be something wrong somewhere. I don't know enough to say what, if anything, is wrong with those ports. What I thought was that *you* wouldn't have to adapt at all, unless you write or maintain a port, but that port maintainers would have to change over to the new style. I thought it was also going to stay compatible with the old style, since 5.X won't, as I understand it, get the changes. But ports still have to work on 5.X, one would hope! --Alex