RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts
inports (without touching localpkg)
eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Sat Jul 31 05:23:57 PDT 2004
Rob MacGregor wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Oliver Eikemeier [mailto:eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com]
>> Nope, only two kinds of scripts will be run: old-style scripts with a
>> `.sh' extension, and new-style rc.d scripts without extension. So you
>> should not run into an trouble with scripts renamed to `.old' or
>> `.disabled', except when you got into the habit to *remove* the
>> extension to disable the scripts.
> Ok, I'm confused (but then I haven't had my coffee yet).
> You're saying that any script ending in .sh is assumed to be an old
> style one
> and processed that way. You're also saying that anything else is
> assumed to
> be a new style script, correct?
No, only scripts without any extension are assumed to be new-style rc.d.
Everthing else is ignored.
> However, then you say that renaming scripts (new or old?) will be fine,
> long as you rename them to .old or .disabled - anything else will still
> be run
> as if it's a new style script?
No, I propose that you ignore everthing that has a extension (a dot in
its filename), except `.sh' scripts, which are considered to be
> I just want to ensure that I don't get bit by this when it goes live :)
Yup. It will be documented then.
More information about the freebsd-rc