From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 31 10:41:32 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A0291065673; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:41:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kamikaze@bsdforen.de) Received: from mail.server1.bsdforen.de (bsdforen.de [82.193.243.81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BF878FC14; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mobileKamikaze.norad (HSI-KBW-091-089-161-008.hsi2.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de [91.89.161.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.server1.bsdforen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D96D7E88B; Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:41:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EAE7B59.7010104@bsdforen.de> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:41:29 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111006 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten Subject: Re: ports/162049: The Ports tree lacks a framework to restart services X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:41:32 -0000 On 31/10/2011 09:37, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/31/2011 00:38, Dominic Fandrey wrote: >> On 31/10/2011 07:28, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 10/27/2011 09:27, Scott Lambert wrote: >>>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 11:15:00AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: >>>>> What really bothers me when I use the FreeBSD Ports tree on one of my >>>>> systems, is that the behaviour of dealing with services is quite >>>>> inconsistent. >>>> >>>> If all of that is contingent upon a boolean knob the admin can set, >>>> something like NO_RESTART_SERVICES, I suspect everyone could get >>>> what they want and the bikeshed would be limitted to what the default >>>> for that boolean should be. >>>> >>>> The people who don't want the services restarted automagically can >>>> set it and, once things use the new ports framewoork properly, not >>>> have to worry about suprises. The people who want everything to >>>> restarted as soon as possible can set the knob the other way. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I think Scott's on the right track. The way that I envision it working >>> would be a 3-knob system. One knob to always restart the services, one >>> to never do it; and then asking on a per-port basis, which should be the >>> default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-build >>> phase similarly to how it detects and warns about IS_INTERACTIVE now, >>> and giving the user a menu of options for how to handle it. I'm happy to >>> add more details if people are interested. >> >> I think this should be handled in the pkg-install script. Pkg based >> upgrade tools _do_ exist. > > Yeah, that's what I said below. :) Sorry about that, I read the entire thread in one go, might have overlooked something. Ironic, because the purpose was to avoid posting redundant feedback. >>> Where this actually becomes interesting is not in the ports >>> build/install process, which is pretty easy to deal with, but with >>> package installs/deinstalls. I definitely think it's doable, what we >>> probably want to do is put a knob for this in the port's Makefile, and >>> handle the stop/start for both the port and the package with a little >>> script that can be included in the package, and run with @exec and @unexec. >> >> Note the Porters' Handboock chapter 6.23.1. The knob to stop services is >> already there. > > That feature as it exists currently isn't even close to adequate, and is > causing more problems than it solves. Hence the discussion. Well, I am one of the people who see no need for this feature and my vote is for default off, if it's implemented. I just wanted to hint that such a function is already in place and I don't think it would be difficult to add the possibility to start a service. What has to be done after an update is often very specific, though. I don't envy the person having to come up with an adequate implementation. E.g. it's not always the service installed by the pkg that needs to be restarted: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/sysutils/automounter/pkg-message?rev=1.2;content-type=text%2Fplain Regards -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?