Switch to using rc.d for local packages is premature for RELENG_6

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Wed Apr 4 22:47:27 UTC 2007

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:59:32PM -0700, Kevin Downey wrote:
> On 3/21/06, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >I have just realized that maybe the best approach to address this
> >problem would be not reverting the change in question, but making
> >find_local_scripts_new() more strict, so that only those local rc.d
> >scripts that have been explicitly marked by maintainer as fully
> >rc.d-safe are handled in a new way. Checking for '^# PROVIDE:' doesn't
> >really work reliably.
> >
> >-Maxim
> >
> >Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> As part of testing how well some of our products work with latest
> >> RELENG_6, I have make a new build and found that lot of important
> >> services (for example PostgreSQL, Apache) doesn't start up (despite
> >> having respective xxx_enable entries in /etc/rc.conf) when installed
> >> from the freshly updated ports tree onto a clean, freshly updated
> >> RELENG_6 system. This is very bad, considering how close to release are
> >> we and how much FreeBSD users rely on those services to work OOB.
> >>
> >> I would expect them to be really pissed off when lot of important
> >> services just don't work after upgrading their server from 6.0 to 6.1 or
> >> after installing it from install cd. This is apparently caused by the
> >> fact that lot of rc.d scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d are newstyle one
> >> now (sufficiently newstyle to pass find_local_scripts_new check), but
> >> few of them were actually tested to work correctly in fully rc.d
> >> environment.
> >>
> >> Therefore, I think that the RELENG_6 should be reverted to using old
> >> stuff and it should be left for 7.x tree.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Maxim
> Which apache port? I have been using www/apache20 for sometime now on
> a machine tracking RELENG_6_2. I use 'apache2_enable="YES"' in
> /etc/rc.conf and it starts and runs fine. Perhaps I am
> misunderstanding your complaint.

Note that you're replying to a mail from a year ago which was probably
coughed up by someone's borken mail server.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20070404/773a935b/attachment.pgp

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list