Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:21:37 +0100 From: Thomas-Martin Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: Ted Cabeen <secabeen@pobox.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Feature Request: /usr/local/etc/rc.conf support Message-ID: <20040217212137.GD719@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <87vfm5777l.fsf@gray.impulse.net> References: <20040217193127.5655.qmail@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <87vfm5777l.fsf@gray.impulse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Ted Cabeen (secabeen@pobox.com): > tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) writes: > > > * Ted Cabeen <secabeen@pobox.com> [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports]: > > > >> With the ever-increasing number of ports that use rc.conf variables to > >> regulate their startup, would it be possible to add support for a > >> /usr/local/etc/rc.conf file in FreeBSD? The constant changes to the > >> rc.conf file have been playing havoc with my centralized management > >> systems, and it makes it harder and harder to keep the /etc/rc.conf > >> file set immutable (which I like to do on critical servers, to prevent > >> the securelevel from changing). > > > > You can use /etc/rc.conf.local. > > Yeah, but that's supposedly deprecated. Maybe, but 5.x still uses it "for historical reasons". Neither rc(8) nor rc.conf(5) say "deprecated". Do you mean rc.local? > > See the declaration of rc_conf_files in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. > > Also, that doesn't solve the problem of securelevels. rc.conf.local > is still parsed by the boot scripts and could be used to over-ride the > system's securelevel. I cannot follow you here. What does the securelevel value have to do with all this? > Ideally I'd like a file that isn't considered part of the main RC > system and is just for /usr/local. I'm sorry, I fail to understand why.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040217212137.GD719>