Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 12:47:35 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, "J.R. Oldroyd" <fbsd@opal.com> Subject: Re: Use of rcorder for local rc.d/*.sh scripts Message-ID: <42A89CD7.1080404@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050609050517.GA28710@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <42A4CA37.1050201@FreeBSD.org> <20050606235426.GA10526@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050607001447.GG37208@linwhf.opal.com> <20050607003142.GD10526@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050607033536.GH37208@linwhf.opal.com> <20050607160855.GO37208@linwhf.opal.com> <20050607173741.GI11758@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050607191109.GU37208@linwhf.opal.com> <20050608233802.GA29707@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050609003459.GK37208@linwhf.opal.com> <20050609050517.GA28710@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've been following this discussion with interest, and I think that Brooks
is right about not having a flag day. On the other hand, I have seen many
people say that they want to get the ports rc.d scripts integrated into the
main rcorder, since some of their software "needs" this functionality. This
will become increasingly important as we move to modularize the base more
and more (ala BIND and openssl).
So, what about this for a compromise? We continue running localpkg to handle
the 000.*.sh and such, with JR's hack to incorporate those better. But we
ALSO build in the functionality to the main rcorder implementation to handle
scripts that do not have *.sh, and we require port authors to include a
special keyword in the script so that rc.subr will know that it is "safe" to
handle them this way. Once the transition is "complete," we drop processing
of the keyword, and the port authors can remove it at their leisure.
Thoughts?
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42A89CD7.1080404>