Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:24:12 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: freebsd@dfwlp.com Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Curious behavior today Message-ID: <444520BC.4060403@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <21818.208.11.134.3.1145378773.squirrel@mail.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Horne wrote: >>"Jonathan Horne" <freebsd@dfwlp.com> writes: >> >> >> >>>ive been working on a pair of test boxes today, and 2 daemons in a row, >>>have installed from ports without the .sh on the end of their startup >>>script. >>> >>>ive done tons of installs on these test boxes, what am i all of a sudden >>>doing wrong? >>> >>> >>Nothing is wrong. >>See "man rc". >> >> > >well, only reason im asking, as in all my previous test boxes, the start >up scripts seemed to initially appear in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ already with >the .sh on them. ive done dovecot and sasl2 a ton of times, its just >seems odd that they start this behavior all of a sudden. > > There are changes going on to how rc scripts work: basically, making /usr/local/etc/rc.d work just like /etc/rc.d with full rcNG functionality (REQUIRE, PROVIDES etc). Scripts which worked like that would no longer end in .sh as per rc man page description for /etc/rc.d Check out the recent discussions on freebsd-rc mailing list from the archives. If you believe that the new scripts are wrong, I would suggest asking on freebsd-rc. Maybe some ports have been updated in advance or wrongly or something, but I would think that freebsd-rc was the right place to start. --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?444520BC.4060403>