Re: RFC: Alternate patch to have true new-style rc.d scripts in ports (without touching localpkg)

Mike Makonnen wrote:

> I have thought about this considerably, and I think the best solution
> is to have ports rc.d scripts installed to /etc/rc.d.

This is what I currently do with slapd, but this approach has multiple 
problems:

- it violates the law that packages have to be PREFIX-clean, which has 
some very unfortunate consequences from a packaging point of view.

- mergemaster barfs ever time (PR 64476)

- you can not be sure that the script is not started before the needed 
filesystems are available.

> One of the problems
> with having them in a separate directory is that we don't know when
> that directory will be available, so we have to order the scripts
> in two phases: first /etc/rc.d and then the ports rc.d directory when
> it is ready. If we do this then there is the REAL possiblity that
> something may not get run the second time around. For example, let's
> say that /etc/rc re-orders all the scripts (base and local) when it
> hits the dummy script PORTS. Furthermore, after they are reordered we
> skip the scripts that come before PORTS. The problem is that When the 
> scripts
> are reordered if a particular script does not have a dependency on 
> PORTS (or
> another script that requires PORTS) you are not guaranteed that if it 
> came
> after PORTS the first time it will still be after ports after the second
> reordering.

No, my patch simply start from the beginning, leaving out every script 
that has already been executed. The worst thing that may happen is that 
a script may be executed too late, which should be ok (call it a wrong 
dependency in that case). So this is not a problem.

> While you can have workarounds and introduce hacks around this 
> problem, I
> think the general messiness and potential problems of ordering scripts
> more than once makes it a bad solution.

As written above: already solved.

> Secondly, there is really no compelling reason that all ports be
> ordered with the base scripts. If a port is of such a nature that it
> needs to be started much earlier than it currently is, either the ports
> should install the script automatically to /etc/rc.d or it should give
> the user the option of choosing.

As stated above: you violate PREFIX with that, which makes it a bad hack.

> So, I think the best course of action is to convert all ports startup
> scripts to rc.d format and either
> 	a) install them all automatically to /etc/rc.d
> 	b) leave it to the port maintainer to choose
> 	c) leave it to the user to choose.

There is no compelling reason *not* to let ports script participate in 
rcorder(8).

> If we go with b or c, then /etc/rc.d/localpkg will need to learn to 
> order
> rc.d scripts. I have a patch for that which is similar to the one I 
> committed
> except that it has a list of the broken scripts which end in .sh that it
> treats like old style scripts (this should preserve compatibility with 
> those
> upgrading from an older release):
> http://people.freebsd.org/~mtm/patches/localpkg.diff

Hmmm.... I believe this list is not complete, besides it looks like a 
maintainance nightmare.

-Oliver