/usr/local/etc/rc.conf

I remember it has been discussed before, but the terms were a little bit
different, so tell me, isn't it appropriate rc.subr to suck the
configuration parameters from /usr/local/etc/rc.conf instead  of
/etc/rc.conf when running startupscripts for third party applications
(/usr/local/etc/rc.d/)?

To keep the organization principles, I dislike putting those 
instructions into /etc/rc.conf when it should be read by 3rd party apps, 
since I consider /etc/ to be used by the base system. Altho' old style 
.sh scripts are still usefull under ${local_startup} dirs, ports 
maintainers tend to write new style rc scripts that uses rc.subr to read 
the user defined options (usually via /etc/rc.conf).

Easy solution would be

rc_conf_files="/etc/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf.local /usr/local/etc/rc.conf"

into /etc/rc.conf, but it seems to be ignored by rc.subr when it's not 
at /etc/defaults/rc.conf;

Some 3rd party startupscripts read rc.subr from /usr/local/etc/, so if 
it suck only ${PREFIX}/etc/rc.conf options, would force users to 
configure it in the right place, but it would break POLA and since some 
scripts read /etc/rc.subr instead if ${PREFIX}/etc/rc.subr, would also 
break some ports (very very bad idea).

So, to allow ports startupscript to be configured from 
/usr/local/etc/rc.conf but also prevent people who are today used to mix 
everything in /etc/rc.conf from having their app. not starting, defining

rc_conf_files="/etc/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf.local /usr/local/etc/rc.conf"

into /etc/defaults/rc.conf would just do it, nothing would break and 
port's pkg-message could start trying to educate users to populate 
/usr/local/etc/rc.conf for ports startup options and leaving 
/etc/rc.conf only for the base system...

-- 
Atenciosamente,

Patrick Tracanelli

FreeBSD Brasil LTDA.
The FreeBSD pt_BR Documentation Project
http://www.freebsdbrasil.com.br
patrick _at_ freebsdbrasil.com.br
"Long live Hanin Elias, Kim Deal!"