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

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Garance A Drosihn wrote:

> 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?

No, that is probably the best solution. But a) some ports install their 
scripts as <service>.sh.sample, so that they are not enabled by default, 
and some users obviously did just rename the scripts. It will be not 
easy, and error-prone to hunt all those instances down. Of course it's 
doable, and would be somewhat `cleaner', but I believe it's better when 
we keep the previously documented behaviour as far as possible.

-Oliver