On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:39:55AM +0100, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > Hi, Doug, > > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 05:49:22PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > > > Typical problem for porter (like me) is not knowing deeps of rc.d > > > subsystem. To be more specific, personally me can't make 'apache13' port > > > do its limits without damaging main rc shell in the same time. If you can, > > > please look 'apache13' port and feel free to fix rc script there. > > > > I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before, the only thing port authors need to do > > for properly functioning rc.d-style scripts is to install them as foo > > instead of foo.sh. I have attached an untested patch for apache13 that > > should do the trick, or at least show you what I have in mind. > > > > At some point down the road, when we've dropped support for releases prior > > to 6.1, this will simply be the way that all such scripts are installed, but > > between now and then, there will be some transition pain involved. > > When I first read your mail on arch_at_ I didn't think about it, but now > I'm reading this thread, it stirs my mind. RELENG_6 is supposed to > be very stable. Though the ultimate stability would be to stay in > RELENG_6_0, I think MFC'ing those changes to RELENG_6 would cause much > pain to system administrators who will be upgrading from 6.0 to 6.1 if > they don't not update their apache13 port accordingly. Similar changes to ports are ongoing all the time, so I don't think this argument is a very good one. Kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:49 UTC