Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 16:51:02 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: pav@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org, dougb@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/90070: [MAINTAINER] mail/rabl_server: per sougb request, use "new style" RC script Message-ID: <20051209165102.7b5bf038@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <1134135523.28991.30.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> References: <200512090922.jB99MYbH094744@freefall.freebsd.org> <20051209143235.79632f96@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <1134131789.28991.24.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20051209150907.1725f4c9@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <1134134096.28991.27.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <20051209153510.5182ebe2@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <1134135523.28991.30.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:38:43 +0100
Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
[ .. dougb's change is not transparent for ports that USE_RC_SUBR .. ]
> > > > > This is absolutely something that must be fixed in the
> > > > > infrastructure, not in every port over and over again.
> > > >
> > > > My point exactly. And, as I've said, I'm willing to work on
> > > > this; I could (manually) check the USE_RC_SUBR ports over the
> > > > weekend to see what kind of rc script they're using. But I need
> > > > to know which way to go: renaming non-RCng scripts to *.sh,
> > > > etc., or I could try to convert them to RCmng (but this should
> > > > be done but maintainers, as they know better what to REQUIRE,
> > > > etc.)
> > >
> > > Is it a good thing to modify USE_RC_SUBR inside bsd.port.mk to
> > > install without .sh suffix if ${OSVERSION} > 7000xx and be done
> > > with it?
> >
> > I think so, but we must check that (1) at least all ports that
> > USE_RC_SUBR have RCng scripts and (2) no port relies on .sh adding;
> > 1 and 2 are somehow the same thing, as 2 hurts only if 1 is false.
> >
> > In the end we should have only new-style RCng scripts
> > (files/rc_script.in) whit ports setting USE_RC_SUBR= rc_script.in,
> > installed as such on HEAD (and sometime on 6-STABLE) and .sh added
> > for older OSVERSIONs.
>
> Other way around, leave USE_RC_SUBR=skript.sh and files/skript.sh.in,
> to avoid repo churn, and strip .sh when installing on newer
> OSVERSIONs.
And end up with an other "historical" rule. (Q: Why are rc scripts
named .sh.in and installed w/o .sh ? A: In the past scripts used to be
sourced in a sub-shell if they had .sh .... ). And not all scripts are
apt to be installed w/o .sh (I didn't check and I don't know if they
would run and rcorder and fiends don't choke on them since they have
no keywords, maybe doug can tell us).
Hmm, since we have to check the scripts anyway, what if I convert any
non-RCng for ports that USE_RC_SUBR ? This is on the todo list anyway.
If something gets broken (== not really broken, but started to late or
something like that) in the process at least the maintainers will have
to fix them (as apposed to the current situation when we still have
non-RCng scripts).
> You file a PR with patch or should I do it? (I would not have a chance
> to test it as I don't possess a -CURRENT box.)
I filled up my -CURRENT slice with other things, but I could empty it
and test next week. Testing the actual patch for bsd.port.mk is easy,
just define OSVERSION=700xx after including bsd.port.pre.mk in port's
Makefile.
--
IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
"Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect"
BOFH excuse #314:
You need to upgrade your VESA local bus to a MasterCard local bus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051209165102.7b5bf038>