Re: Moving /etc/rc.conf.local to /usr/local/etc/rc.conf

Hi John,

> On Jan 6, 2024, at 4:48 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
> 
> It appears that Juan Manuel Palacios <jmpalacios@gmail.com> said:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I’m new on this mailing list (though not to FreeBSD proper), so apologies if this question has already been beaten to death, but I couldn’t find any
>> discussions on the topic anywhere. I’m happy to be pointed to existing answers if they exist, though.
>> 
>> Basically, my question is if it’s possible to use something like /usr/local/etc/rc.conf to configure stuff like services that should start on system boot,
>> rather than putting that stuff in /etc/rc.conf.local (or /etc/rc.conf, for that matter).
> 
> The fifth paragraph of the rc.conf(5) man page appears to answer this question.

Thank you for pointing out that entry in the rc.conf(5) man page! I guess I either didn’t pay too much attention to it at first, and/or I was thrown off either by the meaning of “(dir)” in that paragraph, which I can only assume maps to /usr/local/etc (but I still haven’t tested to confirm that), or by the fact that you can only use “(name)” configuration files inside rc.conf.d within “(dir)”, rather than just a plain rc.conf file within “(dir)”.

So, if I’m I’m understanding correctly, that’d mean that I can have configuration files (*NOT* script files, which would go inside “(dir)”/rc.d) such as:

/usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d/apache24
/usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d/php-fpm

but not a single one named:

/usr/local/etc/rc.conf

So, if that’s correct, why the seeming deviation from what appears to be the norm of /etc/foo, for base system configurations, and /usr/local/etc/foo, for local configurations? That can be seen, e.g., in pkg.conf(5), and if I’m not mistaken for multiple other tools. Why would rc(8) offer /etc/rc.conf & /etc/rc.conf.local instead?

> 
> R's,
> John

Thanks,