On Friday 23 December 2005 18:52, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:38:15 +0100
>
> Florent Thoumie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 23 December 2005 15:19, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> > > I'm not sure this is the way to go, but ...
> > >
> > > Can someone put a document on what is the desired model? I think we
> > > have too much little pieces of disperse notes about this.
> > >
> > > Also, some working notes about ports and RELENG_4/RELENG_5 src
> > > issues will be of interest.
> > >
> > > Hope this can be tweak in time for 6.1 (Jan).
> >
> > Convert your old script to rcNG scripts and use USE_RC_SUBR=
> > script.sh. Ensure that the rcorder preamble contains meaningful
> > keywords (PROVIDES, REQUIRES, BEFORE, ...) for all your rcNG scripts.
> > bsd.port.mk should do the rest.
>
> You should actually convert your old script to a ``rc.d'' script,
> that's how they are called now.
rcNG was the word for "using rc.subr". From the beginning these
rc.subr-powered scripts have been using the rcorder preamble and have
always been rc.d script actually. Since we're talking about the same
thing,
I'm not sure words are really important.
> Also, if your script is rc.d compatible you should use:
> USE_RC_SUBR=script (without .sh)
> For now it doesn't matter because bsd.port.mk install all USE_RC_SUBR
> scripts with .sh extension, but see below
Using the .sh extension prevents from conflicts in ${WRKDIR} and you
know
what kind of file it is in ${FILESDIR}. Anyway, what is the difference
between adding .sh suffix in some cases and removing it in some cases ?
--
Florent Thoumie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD Committer
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
