Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:01:44 +0200 From: Brad Knowles <brad@stop.mail-abuse.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: <p06002015bd47bfc7dd15@[10.0.1.2]> 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
At 3:11 PM +0200 2004-08-17, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> - Why cannot /usr/local/etc/rc.d be used with rcorder if /etc/rc.d/local
> is okay?
You can't guarantee that /usr/local is on the same filesystem as
/etc (and available early in the boot process), and while you can't
guarantee that /etc/rc.d/local is also on the same filesytem, it's a
lot easier for some people to guarantee.
Moreover, many sites may mount /usr read-only, or /usr/local non-suid.
> - 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.
Maybe. Maybe not. It all depends on your particular site
configuration and whether or not you use the ports 100% unchanged,
including location of configuration files, resources, etc....
--
Brad Knowles, <brad@stop.mail-abuse.org>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755
SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/>; for more info.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06002015bd47bfc7dd15>