Curious behavior today
ive been working on a pair of test boxes today, and 2 daemons in a row, have installed from ports without the .sh on the end of their startup script. ive done tons of installs on these test boxes, what am i all of a sudden doing wrong? the only thing im doing different is (what i thinkn is just) syntax. before: cd /usr/ports/mail/dovecot make install distclean now: cd /usr/ports/mail/dovecot; make install distclean saslthaud did the same thing just a while a go. this happend on 2 boxes simultaneously! thanks, Jonathan Horne ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious behavior today
Jonathan Horne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ive been working on a pair of test boxes today, and 2 daemons in a row, have installed from ports without the .sh on the end of their startup script. ive done tons of installs on these test boxes, what am i all of a sudden doing wrong? Nothing is wrong. See man rc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious behavior today
Jonathan Horne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ive been working on a pair of test boxes today, and 2 daemons in a row, have installed from ports without the .sh on the end of their startup script. ive done tons of installs on these test boxes, what am i all of a sudden doing wrong? Nothing is wrong. See man rc. well, only reason im asking, as in all my previous test boxes, the start up scripts seemed to initially appear in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ already with the .sh on them. ive done dovecot and sasl2 a ton of times, its just seems odd that they start this behavior all of a sudden. jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious behavior today
Jonathan Horne wrote: Jonathan Horne [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ive been working on a pair of test boxes today, and 2 daemons in a row, have installed from ports without the .sh on the end of their startup script. ive done tons of installs on these test boxes, what am i all of a sudden doing wrong? Nothing is wrong. See man rc. well, only reason im asking, as in all my previous test boxes, the start up scripts seemed to initially appear in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ already with the .sh on them. ive done dovecot and sasl2 a ton of times, its just seems odd that they start this behavior all of a sudden. There are changes going on to how rc scripts work: basically, making /usr/local/etc/rc.d work just like /etc/rc.d with full rcNG functionality (REQUIRE, PROVIDES etc). Scripts which worked like that would no longer end in .sh as per rc man page description for /etc/rc.d Check out the recent discussions on freebsd-rc mailing list from the archives. If you believe that the new scripts are wrong, I would suggest asking on freebsd-rc. Maybe some ports have been updated in advance or wrongly or something, but I would think that freebsd-rc was the right place to start. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Curious behavior today
Jonathan Horne wrote: well if its an official change in procedure, i have no problem with adapting. the reason it raised my eyebrow today, aside from happening on 2 boxes at the same time, same daemons, but vsftpd did the same thing last weekend when i compiled the port after latest cvsup. vsftpd needed to vsftpd.sh for it to start at boot (with vsftpd_enable=YES in /etc/rc.conf). while i did not reboot my test boxes to see whether or not dovecot and saslauthd did or did not start at boot without the .sh on their scripts, it still wondered what was going on. i have several more additional daemons to compile in today, it will be interesting to see their installation behavior as well. My understanding is that the changes were going to be done in a backwards-compatible way so if something didn't work out-of-the-box for you then there may be something wrong somewhere. I don't know enough to say what, if anything, is wrong with those ports. What I thought was that *you* wouldn't have to adapt at all, unless you write or maintain a port, but that port maintainers would have to change over to the new style. I thought it was also going to stay compatible with the old style, since 5.X won't, as I understand it, get the changes. But ports still have to work on 5.X, one would hope! --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OT: Curious behavior today
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ive been working on a pair of test boxes today, and 2 daemons in a row, have installed from ports without the .sh on the end of their startup script. ive done tons of installs on these test boxes, what am i all of a sudden doing wrong? the only thing im doing different is (what i thinkn is just) syntax. before: cd /usr/ports/mail/dovecot make install distclean now: cd /usr/ports/mail/dovecot; make install distclean saslthaud did the same thing just a while a go. this happend on 2 boxes simultaneously! thanks, Jonathan Horne A question off topic: what would you say about dovecot in terms of performance? Bob Goodman -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wkYEARECAAYFAkRFX0AACgkQAQ09syE0bn7slQCgrNMQCdGx7hFWvcrSkS5GCcKPVMgA n27QCMV0F02OiCEfK24a1G+Bg8ye =gIhb -END PGP SIGNATURE- Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
