Conflicting rc.d script and port dist directory

[Brooks Davis]

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 03:17:41PM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote:
> > > I don't see this as a hack. Any rc.d script placed in ${WORK}
> > > directory should have the .sh extention to avoid conflicts with
> > > similar named directories.  When the port installs the rc.d script, it
> > > should check OSVERSION to determine if the script should be
> > > installed/not-installed with the .sh suffix.
> >
> > I guess that makes sense.  It would be nice if we made up our minds what
> > the source extension and variable values should be.
> >
> The FreeBSD project has made up their minds that from 7.0 forward,
> rc.d scripts will be installed without the .sh suffix.  They are also
> working on getting this working for 6.1+, as long as it doesn't break
> anything. Also we still need to support rc.d scripts for 4.x, 5.x and
> 6.0, so the .sh suffix needs to be appended for those systems.

Sorry, I meant within the ports collection.  The files in ${FILESDIR}
should all end in one of .in or .sh.in and the USE_RC_SUBR entries
should all have or not have the .sh extension.  Allowing variation is
just gratuitously confusing.  Off hand I'd say .sh.in and no .sh in the
variable.

-- Brooks

-- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20051217/e13716b1/attachment.bin