Gergely CZUCZY wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:43:35PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Gergely CZUCZY wrote:
echo 'sevice_enable="YES"' >> /etc/rc.conf.local
Yes, I think we all know how to go about this manually. The question
at hand is whether or not it's possible or desirable to create the
possibility of doing it for the user at port install time.
If what you're trying to say here is that you don't find such a
facility interesting or necessary, thanks for stating your opinion.
I said, that this can be done from the Makefile as well, if that OPTIONS
of yours is enabled.
Seeing as I was gone (really way gone) from the FreeBSD community for a
while, but I used to be very closely associated, I felt that it was
possible that because I had seen both environments (several other
unixes, like Solaris and different Linuxes) and FreeBSD, that before I
stopped seeing things as novel, I might be able to point out some
differences that might be useful. I've seen a lot of knee-jerk
responses to anything new; this group isn't the largest, but they ARE
the loudest.
I'm not sayiing I'm right, but I AM saying that it's worth some serious
consideration. I'm suggesting a number of ideas that just might be
worth adding.
In this case, what I meant was to change the rules, the commonly
accepted methods, for ports to install daemons, to that they directly
patch an rc file, not to make some change in bsd.port.mk, but it really
wouldn't be all that hard to code up some macro to do this, so perhaps
the idea is sound. I'm currenlty going to present something regarding
adding a ports screening method, but that's a much harder thing to code.
This macro handler, that would be comparatively easy.
I see that we need to decide whether to do it or not, but that decision
can wait until I have a macro, a diff to gbsd.port.mk coded up, so we
don't discuss this twice (you can kill the idea very well then, you['re
not going to lose the opportunity). The only things I see to decide NOW
are:
1) name of this proposed macro. I like INSTALL_DAEMON_NAME, do you?
2) the name of the file to carry the resulting definitions. It could be
/etc/rc.local, I saw that suggested, but I would like to say why I like
$(PREFIX)/local/etc/rc.d. I would rather that the dividing line between
any and all system stuff and ports stuff be very very firm and clear. I
detest the Linux habit of folding /usr/bin and /usr/local/bin together,
and I would really want to maintain FreeBSD's current stance on this.
Next couple days, I will show you folks a diff about this. We can make
the changes on the two items above rather easily then, but you might
want to post your feelings now on it. Save the argument over the entire
notion until I get a diff ready.
I mean, that's the FreeBSD way, that no one gets any sort of prior
blanket approval, and I wouldn't change it for the world.
Sincerely,
Gergely Czuczy
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
