Feature Request: /usr/local/etc/rc.conf support

Freddie Cash fcash-ml at sd73.bc.ca
Thu Feb 19 14:11:07 PST 2004

Just curious why everyone is trying to come up with such complex
solutions to this issue.

Everything else is split along the lines of base <---> ports.  Why
should this be any different??  There's an etc/ directory for the base
system, and an etc/ directory for the ports.  The beauty of this
system is that ports don't muck around in the base system (with the
exception of the few that support and override_base option).

It's really annoying to have to keep changing between /usr/local/etc/
to edit configuration files, and /etc/ to enable daemons that are
started by scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/.

There's an rc.conf for the base system, why not an rc.conf for the
ports?  Why does a port have to modify anything in the base system's

There should either be separate etc/ directories, separate rc.conf
files, separate rc.d/ directories for ports and base, or there should
be two separate /etc/rc.conf files:  1 for listing daemons to start,
the other for listing system variables that should only change at boot
time (like securelevel, network settings, and so on).

Freddie Cash
fcash-ml at sd73.bc.ca

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list