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

[Doug Barton]

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. :)

>> 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.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/