Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(1) Combine / and /usr into a single file system by default, and add
/usr/local/etc/rc.d to the search order, with appropriate hacks to
handle old-style scripts. The devil will be in the bikeshed, but the
implementation is easy, except for
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 03:41:33AM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't recommend doing it this way, since some ports I know
are writing startup scripts to
Andreas Klemm wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 03:41:33AM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't recommend doing it this way, since some ports I know
are writing
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
I don't care whether slapd or slurpd starts first, I even don't care when
slurpd
starts. I want to start ldapd early in the boot process to supports
services like
nss_ldap and mail. I did things differently e.g. in net/rsync,
I have a better idea, then we perhaps need something like a
wrapper script that is part of the FreeBSD basic system under /etc/rc.d
that checks for the start script under $LOCALBASE/etc/rc.d
and starts it very early.
Andreas ///
--
Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT
Need a
Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
The reason I did this was to support services like mail and nss_ldap. I
really like to be
prefix safe, PR conf/56736 relates to this:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/56736
I agree that there should be a better solution, and already asked Mike
Makonnen
Andreas Klemm wrote:
What about simply putting a number in front of the script,
I didn't check but am really certain that we start scripts
something like this:
cd $LOCALBASE/etc/rc.d
for i in *.sh --- here you get an alphabetically
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Andreas Klemm wrote:
I have a better idea, then we perhaps need something like a wrapper
script that is part of the FreeBSD basic system under /etc/rc.d that
checks for the start script under $LOCALBASE/etc/rc.d and starts it very
early.
Hmm. I talked with Gordon
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:45:40AM -0500, Richard Coleman wrote:
Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
The reason I did this was to support services like mail and nss_ldap. I
really like to be
prefix safe, PR conf/56736 relates to this:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/56736
I agree
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:31:34AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Andreas Klemm wrote:
I have a better idea, then we perhaps need something like a wrapper
script that is part of the FreeBSD basic system under /etc/rc.d that
checks for the start script under
On Sunday 30 November 2003 16:54, Richard Coleman wrote:
But it doesn't help if you need a port to start earlier than something
in the base. This could happen if you've replaced sendmail with
postfix, and use maps from a remote database (openldap, postgresql,
etc). I'm sure there are other
Melvyn Sopacua [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then you can just as easily nuke the entire mailer.conf principle and symlink
bin/postfix to etc/rc.d/050.postfix.sh.
This is actually one of the two recommended ways of starting postfix
(and the one I prefer). The main reason for mailer.conf to exist
Andreas Klemm wrote:
I guess I don't see the problem. What is wrong with ports adding
startup scripts to /etc/rc.d? For certain ports, that is the only way
to get the startup dependencies right (like making sure openldap or
postgresql starts before your mail system). This will become more
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Melvyn Sopacua [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then you can just as easily nuke the entire mailer.conf principle and symlink
bin/postfix to etc/rc.d/050.postfix.sh.
This is actually one of the two recommended ways of starting postfix
(and the one I prefer). The main
On Sunday 30 November 2003 23:00, Richard Coleman wrote:
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Melvyn Sopacua [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then you can just as easily nuke the entire mailer.conf principle and
symlink bin/postfix to etc/rc.d/050.postfix.sh.
This is actually one of the two recommended
Robert Watson wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Andreas Klemm wrote:
I have a better idea, then we perhaps need something like a wrapper
script that is part of the FreeBSD basic system under /etc/rc.d that
checks for the start script under $LOCALBASE/etc/rc.d and starts it very
early.
Hmm. I talked
Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
Isn't that *exactly why* ports should respect $PREFIX? At least than you know
that startup scripts are in one place. Maybe all that is needed is a variable
RCDIR?= etc/rc.d, for people who want to 'deviate' from this convention.
I like that idea. That could work. But to
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't recommend doing it this way, since some ports I know
are writing startup scripts to /etc/rc.d :-/
That is very, very bad. I wish we had some kind of ports QA team :(
Can I assign PR 56748 to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [031130 11:36]:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Andreas Klemm wrote:
I have a better idea, then we perhaps need something like a wrapper
script that is part of the FreeBSD basic system under /etc/rc.d that
checks for the start script under $LOCALBASE/etc/rc.d and
Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that kinda defeats the purpose of RCNG. One of the best features of
RCNG is that it makes it easier to add/delete applications from the
system. Not using it for this purpose reduces its utility.
Let's not let the typical BSD traditionalism get
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I have a better idea, then we perhaps need something like a
: wrapper script that is part of the FreeBSD basic system under /etc/rc.d
: that checks for the start script under $LOCALBASE/etc/rc.d
: and starts it
Matthias Andree wrote:
Richard Coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But that kinda defeats the purpose of RCNG. One of the best features of
RCNG is that it makes it easier to add/delete applications from the
system. Not using it for this purpose reduces its utility.
Let's not let the typical BSD
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Richard Coleman wrote:
Andreas Klemm wrote:
I guess I don't see the problem. What is wrong with ports adding
startup scripts to /etc/rc.d? For certain ports, that is the only way
to get the startup dependencies right (like making sure openldap or
postgresql starts before
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Maxim M. Kazachek wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Richard Coleman wrote:
snip
For 5.2-RELEASE, I think we should ignore the whole issue and let the
couple of ports that insert things in /etc/rc.d just do it. We're not
going to find any other solution in time to either close
On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 11:47:24PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Maxim M. Kazachek wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Richard Coleman wrote:
..snip..
For 5.2-CURRENT, I think we should revisit this issue with one of the
following conclusions winning out, and the rest being
David O'Brien wrote:
For 5.2-CURRENT, I think we should revisit this issue with one of the
following conclusions winning out, and the rest being discarded as
flame-bait:
(1) Combine / and /usr into a single file system by default, and add
/usr/local/etc/rc.d to the search order, with
Robert Watson wrote:
For 5.2-CURRENT, I think we should revisit this issue with one of the
following conclusions winning out, and the rest being discarded as
flame-bait:
(1) Combine / and /usr into a single file system by default, and add
/usr/local/etc/rc.d to the search order, with
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Richard Coleman wrote:
(2) Reevaluate the order at routine points in the boot where new scripts
might now be available (due to file system mounts or whatever).
Essentially insert the new cards into the deck, and shuffle. This
requires rethinking of our
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 05:04:14PM +0100, Christian Laursen wrote:
20030829:
The following rc.d scripts have been removed and should be
deleted from your installation: atm2.sh atm3.sh devdb
localdaemons network1 network2 network3. Depending on when
you last
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't recommend doing it this way, since some ports I know
are writing startup scripts to /etc/rc.d :-/
That is very, very bad. I wish we had some kind of ports QA team :(
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't recommend doing it this way, since some ports I know
are writing startup scripts to /etc/rc.d :-/
That is very, very bad. I wish we had some kind of ports QA team :(
Maybe
Andreas Klemm wrote:
The following rc.d scripts have been removed and should be
deleted from your installation: atm2.sh atm3.sh devdb
localdaemons network1 network2 network3. Depending on when
you last updated world and used mergemaster(8) you may or
may not
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't recommend doing it this way, since some ports I know
are writing startup scripts to /etc/rc.d :-/
That is very, very bad. I wish we had some kind of ports QA team :(
Well,
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:25:08PM +0100, Andreas Klemm wrote:
All openldapXX-server ports do this for example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /var/db/pkg grep /etc/rc.d */+CONTEN*
[...]
openldap-server-2.1.23/+CONTENTS:@unexec /etc/rc.d/slapd stop 21 /dev/null || true
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
That is very, very bad. I wish we had some kind of ports QA team :(
Well, er, a number of us do essentially nothing BUT ports QA.
Do you actually review ports Makefiles?
DES
--
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 11:38:53PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
That is very, very bad. I wish we had some kind of ports QA team :(
Well, er, a number of us do essentially
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 11:38:53PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
Do you actually review ports Makefiles?
Not pre-review, but post-review, certainly. We also have an cluster
of ~25 machines and a number of ports committers who spend their days
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Do you actually review ports Makefiles?
You _are_ kidding here, right?
Yes, the ports team does read over the ports Makefile. Yes, the
bento cluster attempts to find all the problems that can be found
by automated processes. Yes, my own code
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:25:08PM +0100, Andreas Klemm wrote:
All openldapXX-server ports do this for example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /var/db/pkg grep /etc/rc.d */+CONTEN*
[...]
openldap-server-2.1.23/+CONTENTS:@unexec /etc/rc.d/slapd stop 21 /dev/null || true
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 03:33:35PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Andreas Klemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can't recommend doing it this way, since some ports I know
are writing startup scripts to /etc/rc.d :-/
That is very, very bad. I wish we had some kind of ports
Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Do you actually review ports Makefiles?
You _are_ kidding here, right?
Yes, the ports team does read over the ports Makefile. Yes, the
bento cluster attempts to find all the problems that can be found
by automated processes.
Michael L. Squires [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On both systems I'm running postgreSQL7 from ports. In both cases the
pgctl (the startup script) is called twice, and obviously it fails the
second time. It is called both by /etc/rc.d/localdaemons and by
/etc/rc.d/localpkg. I haven't looked
On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 10:53:29AM -0500, Michael L. Squires wrote:
On both systems I'm running postgreSQL7 from ports. In both cases the
pgctl (the startup script) is called twice, and obviously it fails the
second time. It is called both by /etc/rc.d/localdaemons and by
/etc/rc.d/localpkg.
43 matches
Mail list logo
