Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 13:04:19 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: trix@basement.net Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: bacula-server-1.38.5_1 rc scripts Message-ID: <43E7B9D3.4000204@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <43E7A5A2.2010602@basement.net> References: <43DD0997.3422.3D6D968C@dan.langille.org> <43DDE3CB.23838.6E6C5F@dan.langille.org> <43DF7CAF.2000501@basement.net> <43DF9F75.8020801@FreeBSD.org> <43DFAEBF.8010807@basement.net> <43E006A7.2050705@FreeBSD.org> <43E7A5A2.2010602@basement.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Trix Farrar wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 04:53:59PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> Trix Farrar wrote:
>>>> Doug Barton wrote:
>>> I presume that this file is in PREFIX/etc, not etc/rc.d, is that
>>> right? Only the scripts themselves should be in the rc.d directory.
>>>
>
> Yes, for production, that would be the case. The scripts I have
> submitted are, admittedly, at the "proof of concept" stage. Ad the
> scripts don't know where they might be running from at this point,
> they look for their subroutines in the directory the script was
> executed from.
>
> If they were to be included in the port, yes, they would be patched to
> look for their subroutines in $PREFIX/etc, as you suggest.
Great, thanks.
>>>> In the same vein, the configuration options can all be read from a
>>>> single /etc/rc.conf.d/bacula file.
>>> That leads to an interesting question. Should we add support for a
>>> local rc.conf.d directory? Very few services use this directory now,
>>> so I've hesitated to tweak it, but theoretically support would be
>>> easy to add, and would provide an easier way to set defaults for
>>> more complex scripts (as you already know).
>>>
>
> You mean it's not there already? Honestly, I haven't looked. I just
> kind of assumed it would be there. Then again, I haven't used
> /etc/rc.conf.d, either. I coded it into the script in an effort to be
> functionally complete; in line with how everything else works.
Well, I think I'm confused about something then. If you are saying that you
wrote something special in your script to make sure that it supports
/etc/rc.conf.d/bacula, you don't need to do that, /etc/rc.subr takes care of
that for you if the user makes that choice.
As for lack of support for <local>/etc/rc.conf.d, it's not there now, but I
don't know of any ports that use /etc/rc.conf.d now (nothing in the base
uses it). Your message got me to thinking that adding support for this might
be a cleaner way to allow ports to set defaults, clean up after themselves,
etc.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43E7B9D3.4000204>