Should etc/rc.d/ike move to ports?

[Doug Barton]

Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:39:27 -0800
> Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
>> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>>
>>> Better use:
>>> USE_RC_SUBR=	ike
>>> and put the script in files/ike.in
>>>
>>> Currently this will perform some substitutions on the script
>>> (PREFEIX, etc.) and install it as ike.sh
>> Thanks for that, I wasn't aware that a .in vs. .sh.in was already
>> working :)
> 
> Now:
> USE_RC_SUBR= name.sh.in --> name.sh
> USE_RC_SUBR= name.in --> name.sh
> Then:
> USE_RC_SUBR= name.sh.in --> name.sh
> USE_RC_SUBR= name.in --> name
> 
> Is this not what we want ?

For the Now part, yes. For the Then part, the important factor is whether 
the system is past the local_startup MFC or not. If not, then we always want 
to install as name.sh, otherwise the script won't run. If so, then we want 
to install as just name. There is also the factor of how to deal with a port 
that has a legitimate need to install as name.sh in the post MFC world, 
which would mean (after all the ports are fixed) that its boot script gets 
sourced into the rc environment, rather than run in a subshell. I'd organize 
Then like this:

Pre-MFC system:
USE_RC_SUBR=	* --> name.sh
Post-MFC system:
USE_RC_SUBR=	name.in --> name (this will be the common case)
USE_RC_SUBR=	name.sh.in --> name.sh

Make sense?

Doug


-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection