In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > And if you're looking specifically at the /etc/rc.conf config file, what
> > would be more useful would be an /etc/rc.conf.d/ directory.
> Good news for you, we already support that. :) I agree that it makes a
> great tool for the "many systems" problem, and could reasonably be
> used for part of the "dynamic laptop" problem too.
I've got questions. Do you have a documentation pointer?
> Yes yes yes all around. At one time I suggested that we add support
> for /usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d and encourage port authors to drop files
> in there, but I didn't get much enthusiasm for it. Perhaps it's time
> to revisit that?
While I generally feel that what's good for the base system is good
for ports (and vice versa), is there any real benefit to be had from
having multiple directories for this purpose? In particular, I treat
/etc as precious, becuase it tends to be full of things I edited
myself. /usr/opt/etc, not so much.
If we do have multiple directories, I'd ask that it be a
user-configurable list, defaulting to /etc/rc.conf.d and
$LOCALBASE/etc/rc.conf.d, ala local_startup and a number of others.
Thanks,
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
