rcNG'ification

[Doug Barton]

Lesson number one, we don't refer to it as "rcng" nowadays, since it's
not "next generation" anymore. The preferred term is rc.d.

Volker wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> While I've installed another port a few days ago, I came across
> there're still some (...or some more...) ports in the tree which
> aren't rcng'ified.

That's not really surprising. With 16,000+ ports there are some that
get less maintenance than others, and not every port _needs_ to be
converted. While it would be nice to be uniform, it's not really a crisis.

> This is bad as I've installed net-mgmt/net-snmp4 just for getting
> snmpwalk but am using bsnmp from the base system so I didn't wanted
> the snmpd to start (but it did on the next reboot and that was
> really, really badly stupid).

This on the other hand is a good reason for ports that need it to be
converted sooner rather than later.

> I would like to take the time to work through the ports system and
> make sure rcNG'ification is done for every port which is starting a
> daemon.

That would be a marvelous undertaking, but I would focus your
attention first on ports for which the boot order actually matters.

> Just two quick questions:
> 
> 1) any thoughts on that?

The only thing I would add is that you may get better results by
starting with the subset of ports for which boot order matters that
are also unmaintained (maintainer=ports at freebsd.org). Of course, the
obvious advice of make sure you read the documentation
(http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/rc-scripts.html
and the link to the rc.d handbook chapter at the top, as well as the
rc* man pages, and rc.subr) to make sure that you're familiar with how
these things should be written. I would also suggest that you do 3 or
4 of them first, then post a link to your work here so that we can
help you make sure you're on the right track.

> 2) Is there any committer who is willing to receive rcng'ification
> patches from me by email? I don't think GNATS is a good place for
> probably some hundred patches (I could easily find some non-rcng
> ports in a few minutes without looking deeper).

Do it in gnats for several reasons, the two most important of which
are wider review and more likely volunteers to help get your work into
the tree. Also, when you venture forward into the realm of ports that
actually are maintained, the best way to manage the approval process
is with gnats.

One final word, you can skip the cvsup-mirror port, since I've already
converted that one, and I'll be working with John when he comes back
up for air to get it in the tree.

hope this helps,

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection