On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:58:36AM -0400, Michael W. Lucas wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:22:07AM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote: > > > > On Jun 14, 2005, at 11:10 AM, K?vesd?n G?bor wrote: > > > > >For scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d You should add an entry to /etc/ > > >rc.conf. > > >For example, if You script is somedaemon.sh, then add > > >somedaemon_enable='YES' to /etc/rc.conf and it will run at the next > > >boot. > > > > > > > but his scripts don't use rc-ng, so this is pointless. > > > > they should just work if they end in .sh and are executable. > > And this is the million-dollar question: should they? Two things > could be causing this behavior: > > a) old-style .sh scripts are not supported, Michael needs to rewrite them for > rcNG > b) old-style .sh scripts are supported, Michael has some other system problem > > If a), fine. If b), though, I need to really start digging. Anyone > here know the definitive answer?
I am fairly certain that the answer is b). Although old-style scripts seem to be discouraged these days, they are still supported as far as I can tell. More than half of the scripts I have in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ are old-style (some installed by ports that have not been converted to rcNG, and some purely local scripts). The old-style scripts work fine for me (using 5.4-STABLE.) One possibility is that the system mistakes your old-style scripts for rcNG scripts and therefore handles them wrong - but this is just a wild guess. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"