RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts inports (without touching localpkg)

[Garance A Drosihn]

At 10:12 AM +0100 7/31/04, Rob MacGregor wrote:
>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: owner-freebsd-current at freebsd.org
>>  [mailto:owner-freebsd-current at freebsd.org] On Behalf Of
>>  Oliver Eikemeier
>>
>  > I don't think so. The patch is completely backwards compatible,
>  > which means everything will run as it did before. Why should
>  > anyone be confused by that?
>
>However, everybody who's used to disabling scripts by changing
>the name such that it doesn't end in .sh is going to be badly
>bitten by this.  Suddenly all those "disabled" startup scripts
>will run.
>
>  > As stated above: everything users did before will continue to
>  > work.
>
>Except of course, disabling scripts by renaming them :)

I seem to remember that the safe way to disable scripts was
to change the permissions on them so they were not executable.
This was considered better than renaming them, because the
file remained at the location it was installed at.  This
meant it would still be removed if the package was removed,
for instance.

Is that no longer true?

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih at rpi.edu