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

Richard Coleman richardcoleman at mindspring.com
Sun Nov 30 21:25:36 PST 2003

Robert Watson wrote:

> For 5.2-CURRENT, I think we should revisit this issue with one of the
> following conclusions winning out, and the rest being discarded as
> flame-bait: 
> (1) Combine / and /usr into a single file system by default, and add
>     /usr/local/etc/rc.d to the search order, with appropriate hacks to
>     handle old-style scripts.  The devil will be in the bikeshed, but the
>     implementation is easy, except for the bit where we explain that
>     NFS-mounted /usr/local won't work too well.
> (2) Reevaluate the order at routine points in the boot where new scripts
>     might now be available (due to file system mounts or whatever).
>     Essentially "insert the new cards into the deck, and shuffle".  This
>     requires rethinking of our current approach, which assumes a static
>     order is created once at the start of the boot by rcorder(8).  The
>     devil will be in the big picture *and* the details of the
>     implementation.
> (3) Add /local/etc/rc.d or /local/rc.d or /etc/local/rc.d or the like, a
>     new directory that third party applications are allowed to modify
>     during install, and that will be present for the creation of the
>     static ordering by rcorder(8) early in the boot.  The devil will be in
>     the bikeshed, but the implementation is easy.
> (4) Continue to ignore the issue and let some ports install into /etc/rc.d
>     and consider them unorthodox, incorrect, but something we can
>     overlook.  The devil isn't here, or at least, if it is, we'll overlook
>     it. 
> I'm actually leaning towards (2) as being the best solution, as it's easy
> and functional.
> Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
> robert at fledge.watson.org      Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research

I think this message sums up the options quite nicely.

I like option 2 the best, with option 3 a close second.  I think either 
would be an acceptable compromise.

Option 1 abandons the ability for read-only /usr, which many people 
like.  That and the NFS problems that Robert mentioned should rule this out.

But I like anything over doing nothing (option 4).

Richard Coleman
richardcoleman at mindspring.com

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list