On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:48:59 -0800 Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RW wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 12:14:17 -0800 > > Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> ... 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, > > > > What's the advantage of doing that over having the the defaults > > in the rc.d script, > > I thought I explained that. The point of this thread was that services > installed by ports are not (any longer?) on by default. What I'm > proposing is a way to allow the user to choose to enable the service > using an OPTION (amongst other things). You wrote defaults (plural), I thought you might want to handle other thing apart from yes/no. Having the port options determine whether a port should be off or on by default sounds like a nightmare. You wouldn't know what the packager or previous administrator had set as the default without checking the files. People would still end-up putting settings in rc.conf just to be sure - except that then you wouldn't be able to rely on a comment to turn something off. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
