HEADS UP: MFC of local_startup changes to rc.d complete

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:28:19 +0100
Florent Thoumie <flz at xbsd.org> wrote:

> On Friday 23 December 2005 18:52, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:38:15 +0100
> >
> > Florent Thoumie <flz at xbsd.org> wrote:
> > > On Friday 23 December 2005 15:19, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure this is the way to go, but ...
> > > >
> > > > Can someone put a document on what is the desired model?  I
> > > > think we have too much little pieces of disperse notes about
> > > > this.
> > > >
> > > > Also, some working notes about ports and RELENG_4/RELENG_5 src
> > > > issues will be of interest.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this can be tweak in time for 6.1 (Jan).
> > >
> > > 	Convert your old script to rcNG scripts and use
> > > USE_RC_SUBR= script.sh. Ensure that the rcorder preamble contains
> > > meaningful keywords (PROVIDES, REQUIRES, BEFORE, ...) for all
> > > your rcNG scripts. bsd.port.mk should do the rest.
> >
> > You should actually convert your old script to a ``rc.d'' script,
> > that's how they are called now.
> 
> 	rcNG was the word for "using rc.subr". From the beginning
> these rc.subr-powered scripts have been using the rcorder preamble
> and have always been rc.d script actually. Since we're talking about
> the same thing, I'm not sure words are really important.

Well, I was corrected by dougb@
For me a rc.d script is one that on:
1. has the right keywords, ... (ie. is rcNG)
2. has the right extension depending if it must be sourced or not
(on a a system which has local_startup scripts in the base rcorder -
HEAD and 6-STABLE for now).

> > Also, if your script is rc.d compatible you should use:
> > USE_RC_SUBR=script (without .sh)
> > For now it doesn't matter because bsd.port.mk install all
> > USE_RC_SUBR scripts with .sh extension, but see below
> 
> 	Using the .sh extension prevents from conflicts in ${WRKDIR}

This is indeed a problem; perhaps we should hack bsd.port.mk to avoid
this.

> and you know what kind of file it is in ${FILESDIR}. Anyway, what is

This is easy to fix, no ?

> the difference between adding .sh suffix in some cases and removing
> it in some cases ?

If you are asking what is the difference between how it is/will be treated by
rc.subr the answer is in the quote from Brooks which you removed.
An interesting discussion is in
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/90070 and a solution is
tested (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/90150).

I think naming a script without .sh make it easy to see it's rc.d ready.


-- 
IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"

BOFH excuse #386:
The Internet is being scanned for viruses