Ports startup scripts in /etc/rc.d (Re: 5.2-BETA and related ports issues)

Richard Coleman richardcoleman at mindspring.com
Sun Nov 30 13:46:12 PST 2003

Andreas Klemm wrote:

>>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
> /etc/<whatever>.
> 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
> concerning this.
> 	Andreas ///

But that kinda defeats the purpose of RCNG.  One of the best features of 
RCNG is that it makes it easier to add/delete applications from the 
system.  Not using it for this purpose reduces its utility.

Let's not let the typical BSD traditionalism get in the way of using 
RCNG for what it's designed.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not advocating 
Linux-style integration of packages/ports.  But this seems fairly harmless.

Richard Coleman
richardcoleman at mindspring.com

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list