On 11/18/07, Edwin Groothuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form
> > 'portname_enable="YES"', and this would make your new port operate.
> > Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer
> > the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed
> > to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather
> > obvious workaround?
>
> I don't recall this behavior at all, I think you're confused with
> the messages which ports print at the end of the install-phase which
> say "Add 'foo_enable="YES"'" to your /etc/rc.conf to enable this
> port.
>
Edwin is correct that ports never had this behavior when they were
converted to the rc_ng startup script style, they always required the
system administrator to set the appropriate rc variable in
/etc/rc.conf.
Before rc_ng some scripts would automatically start on a reboot, while
others required copying the *.sh{-dist,-default,...} startup script to
one without the extentsion, as well as setting the execute bit.
This is probably what you are remembering.
Scot
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
