Ports startup scripts in /etc/rc.d (Re: 5.2-BETA and related
andreas at FreeBSD.org
Sun Nov 30 08:40:12 PST 2003
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:45:40AM -0500, Richard Coleman wrote:
> Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> >The reason I did this was to support services like mail and nss_ldap. I
> >really like to be
> >prefix safe, PR conf/56736 relates to this:
> >I agree that there should be a better solution, and already asked Mike
> ><mtm at identd.net> about it, but nobody seemed to care.
> >IMHO not participating in rcorder(8) makes the packing list pettier and
> >avoids an ugly hack,
> >which is good, but restrains functionality. I like the idea of account
> >managed in an
> >centralized LDAP directory very much.
> >So, do you still think the scripts should not participate in rcorder(8)?
> >It's easy to
> >change the ports, but this is probably not the right fix.
> I guess I don't see the problem. What is wrong with ports adding
> startup scripts to /etc/rc.d? For certain ports, that is the only way
> to get the startup dependencies right (like making sure openldap or
> postgresql starts before your mail system). This will become more
> important as more of the base system moves to ports/packages.
> Just refine the note in UPDATING to specifically state which startup
> scripts to remove, rather than "rm -rf /etc/rc.d/*".
As I wrote im my previous mail we could import wrapper scripts
for such basic services, since there are only few services
that are so generic, that they have to be available so early
in boot order.
I strongly would dislike creating ports to install stuff under
This would start to violate things for what I liked FreeBSD for
all these many years and I hope/think other have the same feeling
Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT
Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/
More information about the freebsd-current