Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 10:12 AM +0100 7/31/04, Rob MacGregor wrote: >> > -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org >>> [mailto:owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org] On Behalf Of >>> Oliver Eikemeier >>> >> > I don't think so. The patch is completely backwards compatible, >> > which means everything will run as it did before. Why should >> > anyone be confused by that? >> >> However, everybody who's used to disabling scripts by changing >> the name such that it doesn't end in .sh is going to be badly >> bitten by this. Suddenly all those "disabled" startup scripts >> will run. >> >> > As stated above: everything users did before will continue to >> > work. >> >> Except of course, disabling scripts by renaming them :) > > I seem to remember that the safe way to disable scripts was > to change the permissions on them so they were not executable. > This was considered better than renaming them, because the > file remained at the location it was installed at. This > meant it would still be removed if the package was removed, > for instance. > > Is that no longer true? No, that is probably the best solution. But a) some ports install their scripts as <service>.sh.sample, so that they are not enabled by default, and some users obviously did just rename the scripts. It will be not easy, and error-prone to hunt all those instances down. Of course it's doable, and would be somewhat `cleaner', but I believe it's better when we keep the previously documented behaviour as far as possible. -OliverReceived on Sat Jul 31 2004 - 10:31:56 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:04 UTC