ports modifying system setups

[Doug Barton]

Scot Hetzel wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
>>> 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?

> Edwin is correct that ports never had this behavior when they were
> converted to the rc_ng startup script style,

It's not "next generation" anymore, can we refer to it as rc.d instead
please? :)

As for Chuck's suggestion, I have for some time wanted to add support
to rc.subr for a /usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d so that ports could install
sensible defaults for rc.conf, and delete them when they are
deinstalled. There was some objection to this idea on the freebsd-rc
list when I suggested it though so I haven't pursued it. (I don't
remember off hand what the objection was.)

My idea is pretty simple, rc.subr already has support for
/etc/rc.conf.d which allows for files with the same name as the name=
attribute in the rc.d script to specify the settings for that service.
I'd like to expand this to a local version that ports could write to
on install. I think it would also be good to add an OPTION for "start
on boot," which the user can enable before the _enable option is
actually set to yes by the port.

We can flesh this out in more detail if people are interested.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection.