Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:43:04 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Should etc/rc.d/ike move to ports? Message-ID: <20051217034304.5ed69ef1@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: <43A36C4F.4010005@FreeBSD.org> References: <43A33C0E.9050100@FreeBSD.org> <20051217000418.GC851@zaphod.nitro.dk> <43A35FA5.4050202@FreeBSD.org> <20051217031024.60912c94@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <43A36C4F.4010005@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:39:27 -0800 Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > > Better use: > > USE_RC_SUBR= ike > > and put the script in files/ike.in > > > > Currently this will perform some substitutions on the script > > (PREFEIX, etc.) and install it as ike.sh > > Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that a .in vs. .sh.in was already > working :) Now: USE_RC_SUBR= name.sh.in --> name.sh USE_RC_SUBR= name.in --> name.sh Then: USE_RC_SUBR= name.sh.in --> name.sh USE_RC_SUBR= name.in --> name Is this not what we want ? -- IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" Party-bug in the Aloha protocol
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051217034304.5ed69ef1>