Re: 5.2-BETA and related ports issues

On Sunday 30 November 2003 23:00, Richard Coleman wrote:

> Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > Melvyn Sopacua <freebsd-current_at_webteckies.org> writes:
> >>Then you can just as easily nuke the entire mailer.conf principle and
> >> symlink bin/postfix to etc/rc.d/050.postfix.sh.
> >
> > This is actually one of the two recommended ways of starting postfix
> > (and the one I prefer).  The main reason for mailer.conf to exist is
> > that a lot of scripts have /usr/sbin/sendmail hardcoded and TPTB
> > decided that they didn't want to use 'use.perl port'-style symlinks.
> >
> > DES
>
> But all these seem like such hacks.  It would be so much cleaner to move
> sendmail.sh out of the way and just add postfix.sh to /etc/rc.d, rather
> than using tricks with symlinks and rc.conf variables.

Symlinks have the added advantage that you can easily see what you've done 
using ls(1) - unlike /usr/sbin/sendmail being a shell script. In this 
specific case, postfix already supports the 'start' and 'stop' arguments, so 
there's no need for a wrapper script translating arguments.

> If you have a 
> small number of ports added, it's not a big deal.  But all these hacks
> get confusing when you have a lot of ports, each doing it's own special
> trick.

Isn't that *exactly why* ports should respect $PREFIX? At least than you know 
that startup scripts are in one place. Maybe all that is needed is a variable 
RCDIR?= etc/rc.d, for people who want to 'deviate' from this convention.

> The mailer.conf issue (for mail injection) is a separate issue and
> there's really no way around that.

Just to be clear: with 'nuke' I meant sendmail_enable="NONE" in /etc/rc.conf.
Very convenient I might add.

-- 
Melvyn

=======================================================
FreeBSD sarevok.webteckies.org 5.2-BETA FreeBSD 5.2-BETA #1: Sat Nov 29 
00:15:33 CET 2003     root_at_sarevok.webteckies.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/
SAREVOK_NOFW_DBG  i386
=======================================================