Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 19:33:03 +0400 From: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net> Cc: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Subject: Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg) Message-ID: <20040731153303.GA6471@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20040731151944.GA23710@rogue.acs-et.com> References: <20040731104933.GA1312@rogue.acs-et.com> <03C7D82F-E2F5-11D8-9C56-00039312D914@fillmore-labs.com> <20040731145616.GA14576@rogue.acs-et.com> <20040731150542.GA5612@nagual.pp.ru> <20040731151944.GA23710@rogue.acs-et.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 06:19:44PM +0300, Mike Makonnen wrote: > scripts that have a .sh, and those that don't. If you really want > your script to be sourced in the same shell, then you give it a > .sh extension. Otherwise, it will be sourced in a subshell. So, when It can make things even worse, what if someone rename his rc.subr-ed script.sh to script.sh.old ? It was common practice in the past to not execute anything without .sh at all. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040731153303.GA6471>