Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 11:09:05 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: patl@asimov.volant.org Cc: gryphon@healer.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, jmb@kryten.atinc.com, peter@taronga.com Subject: Re: ports startup scripts Message-ID: <199509271809.LAA10620@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9509271454.AA02380@asimov.volant.org> from "patl@asimov.volant.org" at Sep 27, 95 07:54:45 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think I missed some of the details of the Makefile proposal. How > does a package install it's make dependancies? Does it add lines to > the makefile, or is the makefile dynamically generated by concatenating > a bunch of small per-service make fragments? I like the ability to manage a dependency graph, but I also think that the makefile approach is overly complicated... mostly because of the shared binaries that would have to be invoked before /usr is mounted given the current arrangement of shared library files (not that I agree with that arrangement, or that it shouldn't change to allow a purely shared binary installation). I think my biggest objection is that it requires install-time configuration administration as part of the install. I'd like to divorce that. Say we have a big OEM (like Rod 8-)) who puts BSD on every box. He will put defaults for the configuration he sells in the packages themselves, and forcing install time configuration will be largely redundant (and very frustrating for Rod). > If it adds lines to the makefile, it still suffers from the auto-edit > safty concerns that the straight control file scheme does. (Although > it does eliminate the concerns about getting the order right.) It doesn't. Concatenation is the method I'd see it using. > If it includes a bunch of small fragments, that seems like an unnecessary > extra complication. So does adding a select(2) system call when you have a perfectly good pipe(2) system call. Sometimes adding complexity to get features is a good thing. 8-). > And I think that either the file-name-ordering or straight-control-file > scheme would make it easier to quickly review which services are started > in what order than any make-based scheme. (But I'm willing to be convinced > otherwise.) I definitely agree here. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509271809.LAA10620>