ports/162049: The Ports tree lacks a framework to restart services

[Dominic Fandrey]

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.

> 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.

> 
> 
> hth,
> 
> Doug
> 


-- 
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?