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

On Tuesday 17 August 2004 01:58 am, Jeff Fisher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 01:10:09AM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> > There is no compelling reason *not* to let ports script participate in
> > rcorder(8).
>
> I'm back on 4.x, so I don't have this man page...  However, why not use
> S###name.sh, and let the shell wildcard order them for you?  It's simple,
> effective, and matches what almost everybody else does, which makes it
> easier to manage.
>
> Dependencies are handled by having a standard on what number to choose;
> i.e. S1xx = Adding libraries to ldpath or essential system daemons, S2xx =
> Non-essential daemons with no dependencies, S3xx = Non-essential daemons
> with dependencies, etc.... Someone would be the maintaner of the numbers,
> and give everybody their unique number.  It's not perfect, but is
> relatively easy to manage.

This is messy, IMO.  While this is a step, I don't think that this would be a 
step forward.

I think that a better way would be to find an elegant method of 
allowing /usr/local/etc/rc.d to participate in rcorder.  I've got plenty of 
ideas about how to do this without breaking the filesystem dependency, but 
I'll wait to see what -current and -hackers come up with.  I am sure that 
their method will be cleaner.

Thanks,
Justin