ports modifying system setups
chuckr at chuckr.org
Mon Nov 19 11:30:09 PST 2007
Naram Qashat wrote:
> Also a good thing to point out is that portupgrade can be configured to
> automatically start or stop a port's daemon via it's /usr/local/etc/rc.d
> script, which still relies on having the appropriate line in
> /etc/rc.conf to tell the rc.d script to run, but it is helpful for
> upgrading ports which have daemons so they can be shut down and then
> started again after the upgrade is complete.
Not sure I understand what you mean here. I *think* I remember that
ports (quoite a while back) did not require any patching of rc.conf at
all, just coding in /usr/local/etc/rc.d. Nowadays, there are required
lines in rc.conf which fire sections of rc.d, but apparently (and i do
approve of this) the /etc/rc.conf can't be touched. I guess I don't
understand why not have the entire startup code in rc.d, and merely have
rc source in rc.d after it's finished with rc.conf.
I just took a good long look at portupgrade, I didn't see any option
like you're talking about. You understand, there is no reason that
ports couldn't do what I'm asking about. They aren't written to do this
(at least, several different daemon-ports that I've installed all
required manual patching of rc.conf). This isn't just my own
interpretation, because the ports themselves hint to the user that they
should patch rc.conf to get the port working as a daemon.
I'm just saying that ports should be written to handle this themselves,
and not to require manual patching to get this done. One reason would
be users (non-technical ones) who install a particular port as a
dependency, and thus never even see the comments about what they should
do to get things working. I can't see any reason NOT to do this, and
good reason why it should be done.
> Naram Qashat
> Chuck Robey wrote:
>> I was wondering why ports apparently aren't allowed an obvious
>> freedom, that of being able to set themselves to run as daemons. A
>> greate long time past, I seem to remember that there used to be a file
>> /usr/local/etc/rc.local, which (if it existed) would be automatically
>> sourced in at the end of rc.conf. Ports which built daemons were
>> allowed (well, actually, expected) to ask the user if they wished to
>> activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form
>> 'portname_enable="YES"', and this would make your new port operate.
>> Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no
>> longer the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being
>> allowed to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this
>> rather obvious workaround?
>> I'm pretty sure this used to be allowed... and it seems like a good
>> policy to me, from the number of non-technical folks who now run
>> FreeBSD. I just wanted to know why its not anymore.
>> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-ports