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

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:07:04 +0200
Andre Oppermann <andre_at_freebsd.org> wrote:

> sthaug_at_nethelp.no wrote:
> >>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.
> > 
> > I would much prefer to keep ports out of /etc (or out of the root file
> > system in general). I agree with the point made by several others that
> > the clean separation of base system and local mods is one of the great
> > strengths of FreeBSD.
> > 
> > Since /etc/rc.d/local (or similar) has been proposed:
> > 
> > - Why cannot /usr/local/etc/rc.d be used with rcorder if /etc/rc.d/local
> > is okay?
> > 
> > - If the argument is that /usr/local is not available: Okay, but in that
> > case you won't be able to start the ports anyway, since they are located
> > somewhere under /usr/local.
> 
> Same opinion++

AOL, but additionally an /etc/rc.d/local/ would be good too. In case you
want to use self-written scripts which want to do things before
/usr/local isn't available. You can't place such scripts into /usr/local
(obviously), and you can't reliably place such scripts into /etc/rc.d/,
since mergemaster complains about them (and if you aren't the only
person maintaining the system the foot-shooting potential increases by
placing such scripts into plain /etc/rc.d/).

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
              The best things in life are free, but the
                expensive ones are still worth a look.

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7