Scot Hetzel wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 18, 2007 at 08:17:36PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: >>> activate the port, and if so, the port would add a line of the form >>> 'portname_enable="YES"', and this would make your new port operate. >>> Well, it seems from what I see of my new system, that this is no longer >>> the case. I could understand (and approve of) ports not being allowed >>> to modify any /etc/contents, but howcome ports can't use this rather >>> obvious workaround?
> Edwin is correct that ports never had this behavior when they were > converted to the rc_ng startup script style, It's not "next generation" anymore, can we refer to it as rc.d instead please? :) As for Chuck's suggestion, I have for some time wanted to add support to rc.subr for a /usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d so that ports could install sensible defaults for rc.conf, and delete them when they are deinstalled. There was some objection to this idea on the freebsd-rc list when I suggested it though so I haven't pursued it. (I don't remember off hand what the objection was.) My idea is pretty simple, rc.subr already has support for /etc/rc.conf.d which allows for files with the same name as the name= attribute in the rc.d script to specify the settings for that service. I'd like to expand this to a local version that ports could write to on install. I think it would also be good to add an OPTION for "start on boot," which the user can enable before the _enable option is actually set to yes by the port. We can flesh this out in more detail if people are interested. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"