Re: ports and /etc/rc.d/ [was: Where to put my own startup script]

On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 10:01:45AM +0200, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> >
> >1) ports startup scripts use rc.subr and get a common structure (good)
> >2) with a common structure, rcorder can be used for ports as well (good)
> >3) /etc/rc.d/ and /usr/etc/rc.d/ get mixed up (bad)
> 
> You meant /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ here?

yes

> >4) ports can be started early in the boot process (good, ie for things like
> >   racoon)
> >5) /etc/rc.conf contains directions about ports and is not just a subset of
> >   /etc/defaults/rc.conf anymore (bad, same thing as 3)
> >
> >we tend towards 1) already. once a decision about the other points has been
> >taken, what's left is that all ports are (slowly) converted to this.
> >an update to the porters handbook and after a while, a warning when an
> >old-style startup script will be executed is the way to go.
> >
> >2) will be very nice. PR 56736 from eik seems to address this very
> >elegantly. ports that need to be started early can be started directly 
> >after
> >the dummy PORTS dependency, all others that do not explicitly request a
> >specific startup order should be started at the end of rc.d/. this of
> >course also solves 4).
> 
> You should not really use PORTS, but whatever you need to run.

i don't understand what you mean by that. i was just trying to briefly
describe what your patch from PR 56736 does. maybe i got it wrong?

> >now, shouldn't racoon be started before mountcritremote? #$%#!#, i think
> >i just shot myself in the foot. comments please :-) i am sure that can
> >be fixed elegantly as well.
> 
> The problem here is that /usr might not be a local filesystem, so touching
> anything there before mountcritremote is not a really good idea.

that is exactly what i wanted to say. since racoon might be needed to
mount remote filesystems, and at the same time possibly being located on
one, we have a problem.

more comments about adapting PR 56736 and reverting 3) ?