Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:07:04 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports(without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <41221108.6010407@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <61422.1092748299@bizet.nethelp.no> References: <200408170822.32183.jhandvil@tampabay.rr.com> <61422.1092748299@bizet.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: >>I think that a better way would be to find an elegant method of >>allowing /usr/local/etc/rc.d to participate in rcorder. I've got plenty of >>ideas about how to do this without breaking the filesystem dependency, but >>I'll wait to see what -current and -hackers come up with. I am sure that >>their method will be cleaner. > > I would much prefer to keep ports out of /etc (or out of the root file > system in general). I agree with the point made by several others that > the clean separation of base system and local mods is one of the great > strengths of FreeBSD. > > Since /etc/rc.d/local (or similar) has been proposed: > > - Why cannot /usr/local/etc/rc.d be used with rcorder if /etc/rc.d/local > is okay? > > - If the argument is that /usr/local is not available: Okay, but in that > case you won't be able to start the ports anyway, since they are located > somewhere under /usr/local. Same opinion++ -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41221108.6010407>