Cannot specify ntpd binary in ports with ntpd startup file.

[Cy Schubert]

In message <CAP7rwchK8t=JLsytb8Ccx5iu7qScHdKS1_AJnLsKe6HiE+osOg at mail.gma
il.com>
, Adam Weinberger writes:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:34 PM Dan Mahoney (Gushi) <freebsd at gushi.org> wrote
> :
> >
> > 1) Got the version wrong.  I'm on 10.4.
> >
> > 2) Forgot a subject.  Whoops.
> >
> > 3) Forgot to cc maintainer.  Doh!
> >
> > -Dan
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) wrote:
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > >
> > > Funny question.  I'm on FreeBSD 11.4, and would like to use the latest
> > > version of NTP, which is in pkg.
> > >
> > > The version in pkg doesn't have a startup script, which I'm not sure is
> > > supposed to be the case.  I know for things like BIND (when it was both i
> n
> > > base and in ports) you could override the binary in /etc/rc.conf.
> > >
> > > However, the version of /etc/rc.d/ntpd in BASE doesn't seem to have the
> > > ability to override the binary in rc.conf:
> > >
> > > name="ntpd"
> > > rcvar="ntpd_enable"
> > > command="/usr/sbin/${name}"
> > > pidfile="/var/run/${name}.pid"
> > > extra_commands="fetch"
> > > fetch_cmd="ntpd_fetch_leapfile"
> > > start_precmd="ntpd_precmd"
> > >
> > > What's weirder, is even if I manually modify the /etc/rc.d/ntpd file to p
> oint
> > > at /usr/local/sbin (which I should never have to do), the version in
> > > /usr/sbin gets started.
> > >
> > > root at vortex2:/etc/rc.d # service ntpd start
> > > Starting ntpd.
> > > root at vortex2:/etc/rc.d # ps auxwww|grep ntpd
> > > root     36362  38.3  0.2 26192 18132  -  Ss   12:17AM    0:04.73
> > > /usr/sbin/ntpd -c /etc/ntp.conf -p /var/run/ntpd.pid -f /var/db/ntpd.drif
> t
> > > root     36364   0.0  0.0 18844  2328  1  R+   12:17AM    0:00.00 grep nt
> pd
> > > root at vortex2:/etc/rc.d # grep command ntpd
> > > command="/usr/local/sbin/${name}"
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > So, asking as a port maintainer, a few questions:
> > >
> > > 0) Why the heck is it doing this even when I override the path?
> > >
> > > 1) How can we encourage base to allow override of command_name?
> > >
> > > 2) Is this a brokenness in the port that it doesn't ship with a startup f
> ile?
> > >
> > > 3) Not strictly related, but what's the proper case for pathing since thi
> ngs
> > > like "ntpq", the base path would naturally be found in any standard $PATH
> .
> > > Some ports used to have an overwrite_base option, but this also feels wro
> ng
> > > as it breaks freebsd-update in various ways.  I.e. should the port print 
> a
> > > message stating that you should chmod 000 the original binaries?  Should 
> the
> > > ports versions be named something different?  Should the port just warn y
> ou
> > > that you need to call these things by absolute path, always?
> > >
> > > -Dan
>
> Ping: cy
>
> Why does net/ntp not include an rc(8) script or a pkg-message
> describing how to activate it? It would go a long way if you could add
> at least one of those things.

The former makes no sense but the latter could be done. I'll put it on 
my todo list.


-- 
Cheers,
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com>
FreeBSD UNIX:  <cy at FreeBSD.org>   Web:  http://www.FreeBSD.org

	The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.