Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:22:54 +0000 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de>, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Subject: Re: ports/162049: The Ports tree lacks a framework to restart services Message-ID: <CADLo83_%2BsarbLGPKr40-ubcHE=aYACXrsSLsF2kQKjoaWDgMvw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111027091500.GM63910@hoeg.nl> <20111027162715.GB1012@sysmon.tcworks.net> <4EAE401B.2040704@FreeBSD.org> <4EAE5075.6030102@bsdforen.de> <4EAE5E2D.3060209@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 31 October 2011 08:37, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. =A0The 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 th= e >>> default. I can imagine portmaster detecting this option in the pre-buil= d >>> 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 t= o >>> 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 @une= xec. >> >> 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. I'd be happy to code this; I've offered once before. However, I had a hard time convincing people that it wasn't something that portmaster/portupgrade should be doing instead... Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83_%2BsarbLGPKr40-ubcHE=aYACXrsSLsF2kQKjoaWDgMvw>