On 18 Sep 2010, at 21:31, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Sep 18, 2010, at 14:01, Nick Ludlam wrote:
> 
>> I've just had a look at the startupitem declaration within portfiles, and I 
>> wondered whether it's worth changing the standard message to include more 
>> information. Currently, it reads:
>> 
>> ###########################################################
>> # A startup item has been generated that will aid in
>> # starting <port name> with launchd. It is disabled
>> # by default. Execute the following command to start it,
>> # and to cause it to launch at startup:
>> #
>> # sudo port load <port name>
>> ###########################################################
>> 
>> Now it doesn't explicitly mention that there is also an 'unload' which does 
>> as you'd expect. If we drill this home to users, then it'll save people from 
>> needing to remember about launchctl, and paths to the startup items 
>> themselves. The text could read something like:
>> 
>> ###########################################################
>> # You can run <port name> now, and configure it to start
>> # automatically during boot by executing the following
>> # command:
>> # 
>> # sudo port load <port name>
>> # 
>> # To stop <port name>, and prevent it from from starting
>> # automatically during boot, execute the following command:
>> #
>> # sudo port unload <port name>
>> ###########################################################
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Sure, the message could be expanded. A revised suggestion:
> 
> 
> ###########################################################
> # A launchd plist has been created to help you start and
> # stop the <port name> daemon. It is stopped by default.
> #
> # To start the <port name> daemon now and during every
> # subsequent system startup, run the following command:
> #
> # sudo port load <port name>
> #
> # To stop the <port name> daemon now and to prevent it
> # from from starting automatically during system startup,
> # run the following command:
> #
> # sudo port unload <port name>
> ###########################################################
> 
> 
> I feel adding "daemon" is important since a port might install both a client 
> component and a server component, and the launchd plist would only apply to 
> the server component.

Yeah that looks fine.  If this can be committed, I'll draw up a list of ports 
that have related (and subsequently redundant) ui_msg statements that we can 
remove


_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev

Reply via email to