localpkg script changes

Oliver Eikemeier eikemeier at fillmore-labs.com
Fri Jul 16 08:16:29 PDT 2004

Mike Makonnen wrote:

> The rc.d style ports scripts' behaviour diverge from that of base system
> rc.d scripts. The main culprit is not enough communication among rc.d
> developers and ports developers.

Now, here we go...

> That does not mean that we should change
> the relatively stable/expected behaviour of rc.d to accomodate ports 
> rc.d
> behaviour which is still in a relative state of flux.

What do you mean with `in a relative state of flux'? Could you please 
elaborate what you would expect before you would describe rc.d for ports 
as stable?

> I'll bring this up with re, and portmgr, and see what they have to say.

My 2 eurocents: Add at least ports-developers to the discussion. The 
discussion could only benefit from the input of some experienced porters.

>> I think we should introduce this before 5-STABLE, especially since the
>> current estimated time frame gives us enough room for testing. [...]
> It's not as simple as that. Besides the security implications there are 
> also
> many possible corner cases. To name just a couple: diskless, / (root 
> partition),
> /usr/local, /usr/X11R6 on different partitions or even mounted 
> remotely, etc...

I can't see any security implications here, and when you manage to get 
things working diskless, I can't see any problems when /usr/local and 
/usr/X11R6 are on different partitions... Could you just name some 
*real* problems instead of just stating that it is `difficult', so that 
we can start to work on them?

> How is rc(8) going to handle all these possible scenarios. It's 
> possible,
> but it's not trivial. And this close to 5-STABLE is not the time to 
> start
> experimenting with it. If you feel otherwise, then separate this 
> particular
> issue out from your patch and post to -arch.

I feel otherwise, see my last post. Also, since ports are concerned, I 
believe ports@ is the right list for this. I think not many porters read 
arch@, and nobody reads rc at .


Your wish is my command. Anyway, changes on localpkg mostly affect 
ports, not the rc.subr system. I don't like cross-posting, but since the 
noise level on rc@ is nearly zero I guess nobody there will mind.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list