Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:50:49 -0700 From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Gordon Tetlow <gordon@FreeBSD.org>, Nik Clayton <nik@FreeBSD.org>, Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 4.x compatibilty.. Was: MFC of rcNG? Message-ID: <3D0CFA29.C680120F@FreeBSD.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206161310030.10794-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Doug Barton wrote: > > > > > [Moved to -arch, since the cvs-* lists have suffered enough recently.] > > > > > > > The only MFC candidate I'd like to see is /etc/rc.subr. This would allow > > the ports collection to use the facilities provided by rcng while not > > making everything dependent on whether you are using CURRENT or STABLE. > > > > The reason for having 4.x branch is for 'backwards compaitible' changes > to be made available to users of 4.x FreeBSD. > > The only features fo rcNG that can be MFC'd are those that are pure > additions. Agreed. The current way that the stuff is layed out is that there is a knob in rc.conf that basically means, "Use the old stuff, or use the new stuff." Anything that is mfc'ed will still depend on that knob. The reason for mfc'ing /etc/rc.subr (which just sits there harmlessly until you use it explicitly) is so that ports authors CAN (note, not MUST) modify their startup scripts to take advantage of it. I'm very sensitive to the need to keep RELENG_4 non-POLA-wanking, so you can rest easy, at least as far as /etc stuff goes. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D0CFA29.C680120F>