Thanks for 'clean' reply. This just looks -to me- it is a bit harder to
follow which port installs which config files, especially if it is
installed as dependency.
I'm not criticizing, just trying to adopt OpenBSD way as an (old) NetBSD
user. ;))
Regards,
Chris Kuethe, 05/29/09 01:30:
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Cem Kayali <cemkay...@eticaret.com.tr> wrote:
Hello!
According to OpenBSD porting policy, it is "OpenBSD policy is to never
update files under /etc automatically. Ports that need some specific boot
setup should advise the administrator about what to do instead of blindly
installing files."
Well, i have noticed that 'privoxy' and 'tor' install their configuration
files into /etc automatically. _Forgive me, if i misunderstand_, but does
not this policy cover 'it does not create folders under /etc automatically'?
Is it just simple 'it does not touch ANY FILE under /etc though be aware it
populates /etc with new folders'?
adding a sample default configuration file is different from changing
/etc/rc* to start your new daemon. if you change the sample default
configuration file, the package system notices it and a) won't remove
it at uninstall time, and b) won't replace it at upgrade, because it
is now part of your custom system configuration.
I was expecting something similar to that: "config files are at ie;
/usr/local/somewhere/etc/privoxy" and we advise you to copy them to
/etc/privoxy, and add these lines to rc.local"...
many packages do have just such an install-time message, suggesting a
way to activate this new software, but the installation won't modify
your system configuration automatically.
For example, installing mysql through ports cleanly advises administrator
to add configuraion files.
Mysql ships with a number of differently tuned configuration files -
it's tough to pick the right default one to install. Other ports
(avrdude, for example) have a single default configuration, making the
selection trivial.
CK
