Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:38:43 +0100 From: Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> 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: <1134135523.28991.30.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> In-Reply-To: <20051209153510.5182ebe2@it.buh.tecnik93.com> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > And with new dougb's rcNG, rc scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d now
> > > > must be without .sh extension?
> > >
> > > In dougb's words:
> > > >>> The rc.subr system treats scripts named foo.sh differently than
> > > > scripts named foo. The former are actually sourced into the rc
> > > > environment, which can cause problems if there are errors in the
> > > > script, it overwrites a global variable used elsewhere, etc.
> > > > Thus, it is better to install the script as foo instead of foo.sh.
> > > And the example he provided install non .sh on HEAD; unfortunately
> > > the port from his example doesn't USE_RC_SUBR macro.
> >
> > So when installed with .sh they will still work?
>
> Yes, but w/o using dougb's new style.
That's pity, I hoped it will be transparent.
> > > > 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.
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.)
--
Pav Lucistnik <pav@oook.cz>
<pav@FreeBSD.org>
Quantum physics was developed in the 1930's, as a result of a bet between
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, to see who could come up with the most
ridiculous theory and still have it published.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1134135523.28991.30.camel>