Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
El Lunes, 26 de Diciembre de 2005 09:53, Doug Barton escribió:
Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
But this doesn't solve the real problem. We've lost a reference
model about rc and the interaction with the base system and ports.
I'm not sure what that last sentence means.
Form
El Jueves, 29 de Diciembre de 2005 16:54, Carlos Eduardo G. Carvalho
escribió:
> Em Qui, 2005-12-29 às 16:41 +0100, Jose M Rodriguez escreveu:
> > A lot of things has been changed, an now, it's really hard to get
> > an idea about the boot process and the order used to launch the
> > components.
Em Qui, 2005-12-29 às 16:41 +0100, Jose M Rodriguez escreveu:
> A lot of things has been changed, an now, it's really hard to get an
> idea about the boot process and the order used to launch the
> components.
I'm sorry if I am saying something that is out of the discussion, I
didn't see the
El Lunes, 26 de Diciembre de 2005 09:53, Doug Barton escribió:
> Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> > But this doesn't solve the real problem. We've lost a reference
> > model about rc and the interaction with the base system and ports.
>
> I'm not sure what that last sentence means.
>
Form our old rc sy
On 21/12/2005, at 7:23 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
As has been discussed for a couple weeks now, I have MFC'ed to
RELENG_6 the changes in /etc/rc* that bring new-style boot scripts
from the local_startup directories (by default /usr/local/etc/rc.d
and /usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d) into the base rcorder.
Florent Thoumie wrote:
rcNG was the word for "using rc.subr".
rcNG stands for rc Next Generation. It's not the next generation anymore.
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
betwee
Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
But this doesn't solve the real problem. We've lost a reference model
about rc and the interaction with the base system and ports.
I'm not sure what that last sentence means.
- some kinda of style for ports/system rc scripts
- some docs about keywords and stage suppo
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:28:19 +0100
Florent Thoumie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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:
> > > >
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
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
El Viernes, 23 de Diciembre de 2005 16:17, Florent Thoumie escribió:
> On Friday 23 December 2005 16:12, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> > El Viernes, 23 de Diciembre de 2005 15:38, Florent Thoumie escribió:
> > > On Friday 23 December 2005 15:19, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > I'm not sure this is the
On Friday 23 December 2005 16:12, Jose M Rodriguez wrote:
> El Viernes, 23 de Diciembre de 2005 15:38, Florent Thoumie escribió:
> > 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 desi
El Viernes, 23 de Diciembre de 2005 15:38, Florent Thoumie escribió:
> 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
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_
El Miércoles, 21 de Diciembre de 2005 09:23, Doug Barton escribió:
> Howdy,
>
> As has been discussed for a couple weeks now, I have MFC'ed to
> RELENG_6 the changes in /etc/rc* that bring new-style boot scripts
> from the local_startup directories (by default /usr/local/etc/rc.d
> and /usr/X11R6/
Greg Rivers wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Doug Barton wrote:
As has been discussed for a couple weeks now, I have MFC'ed to
RELENG_6 the changes in /etc/rc* that bring new-style boot scripts
from the local_startup directories (by default /usr/local/etc/rc.d and
/usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d) into the bas
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Doug Barton wrote:
As has been discussed for a couple weeks now, I have MFC'ed to RELENG_6
the changes in /etc/rc* that bring new-style boot scripts from the
local_startup directories (by default /usr/local/etc/rc.d and
/usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d) into the base rcorder...
This
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:23:20AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
If you run into one of
these problems, please report it to the port's maintainer, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ASAP.
ITYM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yep, sorry. :)
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
__
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 12:23:20AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> If you run into one of
> these problems, please report it to the port's maintainer, and
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ASAP.
ITYM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mcl
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
Howdy,
As has been discussed for a couple weeks now, I have MFC'ed to RELENG_6 the
changes in /etc/rc* that bring new-style boot scripts from the local_startup
directories (by default /usr/local/etc/rc.d and /usr/X11R6/etc/rc.d) into
the base rcorder. For old style scripts (those that don't us
20 matches
Mail list logo
