Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:25:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of RC_SUBR and RC_SUBR_SUFFIX Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1004112024210.1547@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <hoqg6s$21gd$1@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <4BAEFA0B.5070104@FreeBSD.org> <hoqg6s$21gd$1@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> As should be obvious by now I'm following through on my previously
>> stated plans to remove the no longer necessary %%RC_SUBR%% and
>> %%RC_SUBR_SUFFIX%% from the ports tree.
>
> Does it still make sense to use
>
> rcvar=`set_rcvar`
>
> as recommended by rc.subr(8) or should we just use
>
> rcvar=${name}_enable
>
> as shown in the Porter's Handbook example?
Either one is fine. I've always regarded set_rcvar as a little bit too
much abstraction, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong" to use it.
Doug
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1004112024210.1547>