RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in
ports(without touching localpkg)
Alexander Leidinger
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Tue Aug 17 08:40:30 PDT 2004
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:07:04 +0200
Andre Oppermann <andre at freebsd.org> wrote:
> sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
> >>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.
> >
> > I would much prefer to keep ports out of /etc (or out of the root file
> > system in general). I agree with the point made by several others that
> > the clean separation of base system and local mods is one of the great
> > strengths of FreeBSD.
> >
> > Since /etc/rc.d/local (or similar) has been proposed:
> >
> > - Why cannot /usr/local/etc/rc.d be used with rcorder if /etc/rc.d/local
> > is okay?
> >
> > - If the argument is that /usr/local is not available: Okay, but in that
> > case you won't be able to start the ports anyway, since they are located
> > somewhere under /usr/local.
>
> Same opinion++
AOL, but additionally an /etc/rc.d/local/ would be good too. In case you
want to use self-written scripts which want to do things before
/usr/local isn't available. You can't place such scripts into /usr/local
(obviously), and you can't reliably place such scripts into /etc/rc.d/,
since mergemaster complains about them (and if you aren't the only
person maintaining the system the foot-shooting potential increases by
placing such scripts into plain /etc/rc.d/).
Bye,
Alexander.
--
The best things in life are free, but the
expensive ones are still worth a look.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list