Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:41:29 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: ports/162049: The Ports tree lacks a framework to restart services Message-ID: <4EAE7B59.7010104@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 31/10/2011 09:37, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/31/2011 00:38, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> On 31/10/2011 07:28, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 10/27/2011 09:27, Scott Lambert wrote: >>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:15:00AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: >>>>> What really bothers me when I use the FreeBSD Ports tree on one of my >>>>> systems, is that the behaviour of dealing with services is quite >>>>> inconsistent. >>>> >>>> If all of that is contingent upon a boolean knob the admin can set, >>>> something like NO_RESTART_SERVICES, I suspect everyone could get >>>> what they want and the bikeshed would be limitted to what the default >>>> for that boolean should be. >>>> >>>> The people who don't want the services restarted automagically can >>>> set it and, once things use the new ports framewoork properly, not >>>> have to worry about suprises. The people who want everything to >>>> restarted as soon as possible can set the knob the other way. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I think Scott's on the right track. The way that I envision it working >>> would be a 3-knob system. One knob to always restart the services, one >>> to never do it; and then asking on a per-port basis, which should be the >>> default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-build >>> phase similarly to how it detects and warns about IS_INTERACTIVE now, >>> and giving the user a menu of options for how to handle it. I'm happy to >>> add more details if people are interested. >> >> I think this should be handled in the pkg-install script. Pkg based >> upgrade tools _do_ exist. > > Yeah, that's what I said below. :) Sorry about that, I read the entire thread in one go, might have overlooked something. Ironic, because the purpose was to avoid posting redundant feedback. >>> Where this actually becomes interesting is not in the ports >>> build/install process, which is pretty easy to deal with, but with >>> package installs/deinstalls. I definitely think it's doable, what we >>> probably want to do is put a knob for this in the port's Makefile, and >>> handle the stop/start for both the port and the package with a little >>> script that can be included in the package, and run with @exec and @unexec. >> >> Note the Porters' Handboock chapter 6.23.1. The knob to stop services is >> already there. > > That feature as it exists currently isn't even close to adequate, and is > causing more problems than it solves. Hence the discussion. Well, I am one of the people who see no need for this feature and my vote is for default off, if it's implemented. I just wanted to hint that such a function is already in place and I don't think it would be difficult to add the possibility to start a service. What has to be done after an update is often very specific, though. I don't envy the person having to come up with an adequate implementation. E.g. it's not always the service installed by the pkg that needs to be restarted: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/automounter/pkg-message?rev=1.2;content-type=text%2Fplain Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EAE7B59.7010104>