Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:11:04 -0800 (PST) From: "Freddie Cash" <fcash-ml@sd73.bc.ca> To: ports@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Feature Request: /usr/local/etc/rc.conf support Message-ID: <49331.207.23.164.8.1077228664.squirrel@mailtest.sd73.bc.ca> In-Reply-To: <87y8qywx47.fsf@gray.impulse.net> References: <87u11p8sl6.fsf@gray.impulse.net><20040218180829.B43291@carver.gumbysoft.com><001401c3f732$93405c40$c700a8c0@lxfvm8jmsx9muk3> <87y8qywx47.fsf@gray.impulse.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just curious why everyone is trying to come up with such complex solutions to this issue. Everything else is split along the lines of base <---> ports. Why should this be any different?? There's an etc/ directory for the base system, and an etc/ directory for the ports. The beauty of this system is that ports don't muck around in the base system (with the exception of the few that support and override_base option). It's really annoying to have to keep changing between /usr/local/etc/ to edit configuration files, and /etc/ to enable daemons that are started by scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/. There's an rc.conf for the base system, why not an rc.conf for the ports? Why does a port have to modify anything in the base system's etc/? There should either be separate etc/ directories, separate rc.conf files, separate rc.d/ directories for ports and base, or there should be two separate /etc/rc.conf files: 1 for listing daemons to start, the other for listing system variables that should only change at boot time (like securelevel, network settings, and so on). -- Freddie Cash fcash-ml@sd73.bc.ca
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49331.207.23.164.8.1077228664.squirrel>