RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts
inports (without touching localpkg)
eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Sat Jul 31 05:31:56 PDT 2004
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 10:12 AM +0100 7/31/04, Rob MacGregor wrote:
>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-freebsd-current at freebsd.org
>>> [mailto:owner-freebsd-current at freebsd.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Oliver Eikemeier
>> > I don't think so. The patch is completely backwards compatible,
>> > which means everything will run as it did before. Why should
>> > anyone be confused by that?
>> However, everybody who's used to disabling scripts by changing
>> the name such that it doesn't end in .sh is going to be badly
>> bitten by this. Suddenly all those "disabled" startup scripts
>> will run.
>> > As stated above: everything users did before will continue to
>> > work.
>> Except of course, disabling scripts by renaming them :)
> I seem to remember that the safe way to disable scripts was
> to change the permissions on them so they were not executable.
> This was considered better than renaming them, because the
> file remained at the location it was installed at. This
> meant it would still be removed if the package was removed,
> for instance.
> Is that no longer true?
No, that is probably the best solution. But a) some ports install their
scripts as <service>.sh.sample, so that they are not enabled by default,
and some users obviously did just rename the scripts. It will be not
easy, and error-prone to hunt all those instances down. Of course it's
doable, and would be somewhat `cleaner', but I believe it's better when
we keep the previously documented behaviour as far as possible.
More information about the freebsd-rc