Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 18:21:11 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@people.tecnik93.com> Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Should etc/rc.d/ike move to ports? Message-ID: <43A37617.2030406@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20051217040348.087f1248@it.buh.tecnik93.com> References: <43A33C0E.9050100@FreeBSD.org> <20051217000418.GC851@zaphod.nitro.dk> <43A35FA5.4050202@FreeBSD.org> <20051217031024.60912c94@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <43A36C4F.4010005@FreeBSD.org> <20051217034304.5ed69ef1@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <43A36F14.1050804@FreeBSD.org> <20051217040348.087f1248@it.buh.tecnik93.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> Yes, that's what I (wanted to) say. ("my" then = post-MFC, post-fix_ports).
> Pav's PR will get us support for this in bsd.port.mk, the rest is
> fixing the ports to be rc.d compatible and repo-copies.
That's great, although ironically I _just_ ran into a situation where that
is not the ideal way to do it. :) I am working on updating misc/compat5x to
use an rc.d-style script, and tried doing it the way that you suggested,
with compat5x.in. When bsd.port.mk tried to create the boot script however,
I got an error because work/compat5x already existed, it was the directory
in work where the tarball unpacked itself. Most of the time this is not
going to be a problem, as the source directory will be versioned (like
foopkg-1.2.3), but this is a corner case that should be kept in mind.
For now I'm going to suggest using compat5x.sh for this particular case, it
can be adjusted down the road if needed.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43A37617.2030406>