Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 13:59:44 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Fritz Heinrichmeyer <Fritz.Heinrichmeyer@FernUni-Hagen.de> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cupsd or cupsd.sh, that is the question Message-ID: <4429B1D0.4060802@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4428DD9B.603@Fernuni-Hagen.de> References: <4428DD9B.603@Fernuni-Hagen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Fritz Heinrichmeyer wrote: > Hello, i thought it is a convention to install boot scripts with ending > .sh? At least cupsd is the first script i notice that does not follow > this convention. We are migrating to making the LOCALBASE/etc/rc.d and X11BASE/etc/rc.d directories act just like the /etc/rc.d directory, so the idea is that at some point in the future (likely years + 2 full versions of FreeBSD) we will have all scripts in the local directories conform to the rc.d style, and installed with just their service names (foo instead of foo.sh). Then if there is demand for it, we will enable the sourcing of local foo.sh scripts into the startup shell, like the ones in /etc/rc.d are done now. Currently, all local scripts are executed in a subshell. The logic for whether to install a local script as foo, or foo.sh is built into bsd.port.mk, and is dependent on whether or not your base OS is new enough to have the requisite local_startup support. Either way, there should be no functional difference as to how the things work. hope this helps, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4429B1D0.4060802>