On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:09:52AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On Fri, 31 Aug 2007, Sean Bruno wrote: > >> I noticed that if rc.conf has ntpd_enable="NO", an invocation of >> /etc/rc.d/ntpd stop won't actually shut down ntpd. I checked a couple of >> other processes(like net-snmp) and noted the same behavior. > > FYI, there is a list for discussing rc.d issues, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The > current > behavior is by design, and I don't think that changing it is a good idea > this late in the game. > > Assuming that lack of an affirmative _enable variable is a constant, the > only way that a service can be started is with either onestart or > forcestart. The symmetry here would be to stop it the same way. > >> I would have expected that rc would be able to invoke the stop routines if >> a utility is disabled, > > It can invoke them, in the same way that the start routines can be invoked > if a service is not enabled, by prepending one or force to stop. > > Looking at this from the other direction, what would be the benefit to > having plain stop act in the absence of an _enable variable for that > service?
The times I have noticed that stop does not work without an _enable variable has been when I wished to stop running some service. First I edited rc.conf to remove the _enable line (to make sure the service did not start the next time I restarted the computer) and then I tried to stop the service using the normal 'stop' invocation. This of course did not work which was very annoying. (The above is IMO the proper order to do this - if it worked.) There has been several times when I have been annoyed by the fact that stop needs the _enable variable to be set. There has never been any occasion when I have been happy about this fact. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
