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

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:58:56 +0200, Jan Srzednicki <w_at_expro.pl> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:09:25AM -0500, Scot Hetzel wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:08:12 +0200, Jan Srzednicki <w_at_expro.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's why my suggestion would be: /etc/rc.d/local/ (or
> > > /etc/rc.d/ports/, or whatever you want to call it). In this way you can
> > > easily separate both directories, and as new-style ports rc-scripts have
> > > to be placed in the new location, there is absolutely no confusion about
> > > them. Old scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d would be run with localpkg as
> > > they have been before.
> > >
> > Except this breaks for people who are NFS mounting /usr/local from
> > another machine, as the startup scripts are on the machine where the
> > port was originally installed, instead on in local/etc/rc.d.  Which is
> > one of the purposes of putting them into local/etc/rc.d in the first
> > place.
> 
> That can easily be fixed by a global make option (in /etc/make.conf)
> that would not install anything in /etc/rc.d/local/ and use old-style
> /usr/local/etc/rc.d, even if the system supports /etc/rc.d/local/. So it
> brings us to two make options - INSTALL_RCD and IGNORE_INSTALL_RCD (just
> a naming suggestion). /etc/rc.d/localpkg won't go away, so this seems to
> me to be a good solution.
> 
There is still no need to have the ports system install the startup
scripts into /etc/rc.d/ or /etc/rc.d/local.  If you have a look at the
NetBSD ports startup scripts, at the top of each script is a comment
that says to move the file.sh to /etc/rc.d/file, if you wish to have
them participate in rcorder.

It is best to leave the moving of these scripts up to the individual
administrator.