Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 01:37:01 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: ports/162049: The Ports tree lacks a framework to restart services Message-ID: <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. :) >> 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. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EAE5E2D.3060209>