RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts
in ports(without touching localpkg)
jhandvil at tampabay.rr.com
Tue Aug 17 05:10:05 PDT 2004
On Tuesday 17 August 2004 01:58 am, Jeff Fisher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:10:09AM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> > There is no compelling reason *not* to let ports script participate in
> > rcorder(8).
> I'm back on 4.x, so I don't have this man page... However, why not use
> S###name.sh, and let the shell wildcard order them for you? It's simple,
> effective, and matches what almost everybody else does, which makes it
> easier to manage.
> Dependencies are handled by having a standard on what number to choose;
> i.e. S1xx = Adding libraries to ldpath or essential system daemons, S2xx =
> Non-essential daemons with no dependencies, S3xx = Non-essential daemons
> with dependencies, etc.... Someone would be the maintaner of the numbers,
> and give everybody their unique number. It's not perfect, but is
> relatively easy to manage.
This is messy, IMO. While this is a step, I don't think that this would be a
I think that a better way would be to find an elegant method of
allowing /usr/local/etc/rc.d to participate in rcorder. I've got plenty of
ideas about how to do this without breaking the filesystem dependency, but
I'll wait to see what -current and -hackers come up with. I am sure that
their method will be cleaner.
More information about the freebsd-current