Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:44:34 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 247626] net/py-wsdd: Update to 0.6.1 Message-ID: <bug-247626-7788-8ovRyuE8hG@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-247626-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-247626-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D247626 --- Comment #5 from Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> --- Three things: 1. Just some feedback: regarding the variable name (wsdd_suppflags): I had = the same conundrum. :) I'm not sure what to call it either. I might suggest looking through some other ports to see, although it might be difficult bec= ause there's only a limited number which use daemon(8). So, I think wsdd_suppfl= ags is fine. The other variables look very reasonable -- zero complaints! 2. I would suggest adding NETWORKING and SERVERS to the REQUIRE line. This= can affect rcorder(8). I know only DAEMON works as-is, but there is no guaran= tee of that long-term depending on if there are revamps in the future. We also must consider possibility of jail usage, where IIRC behaviours are differen= t.=20 I suggest looking at /etc/rc.d/* for examples. I just know that the 3 comb= ined will always do the right thing. 3. Someone (I can do this if it makes your life easier) should submit the w= sdd rc script modifications, when finished, back to the author in GitHub, so th= at there's at least some uniformity. FreeNAS may eventually pick that up too (their wsdd version right now is old and using an equally old service model, based entirely on what's in GitHub I think and not what's in ports). Thank you for your attentivity! It's greatly appreciated. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-247626-7788-8ovRyuE8hG>