Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 08:38:29 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: ports/162049: The Ports tree lacks a framework to restart services Message-ID: <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > 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. > > > hth, > > Doug > -- 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?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EAE5075.6030102>