Should etc/rc.d/ike move to ports?

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:45:25 -0800
Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> wrote:

> Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> > On 2005.12.16 14:13:34 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > 
> >> Because it was previously not possible to run scripts for ports in
> >> the base rcorder, and because the rc.d/ike script needed to run
> >> well before localpkg, it was imported into the base, and lives
> >> currently in /etc/rc.d. However, now that I am about to MFC the
> >> code that runs ports scripts in the base rcorder, I'm wondering if
> >> we shouldn't add the rc.d script to the port, and remove it from
> >> HEAD and RELENG_6 after my MFC. I would of course be glad to assist
> >> with any details related to the move.

 [ ... ]

> Ok, sounds like you're on top of this then. The preferred way to do
> this currently would be to add the script to the files directory, and
> the following to the port Makefile:
> 
> USE_RC_SUBR=	ike.sh
> 
> There is already some cool stuff in the ports infrastructure to
> handle these scripts. Take a look at databases/mysql323-server if you
> want an example. The current infrastructure already handles things
> like subbing out PREFIX, etc. for you. In the near future the ports
> infrastructure will be updated to then install that file as just ike
> on systems that are past the MFC date of the local_startup changes,
> and as ike.sh on older systems so it will still work.

Better use:
USE_RC_SUBR=	ike
and put the script in files/ike.in

Currently this will perform some substitutions on the script (PREFEIX,
etc.) and install it as ike.sh
After pav@'s PR gets commited it will install w/o .sh on rc.d sistems
(HEAD for now), which is, AFAIK what we want in the long run (so we can
differentiate between (non-)sourced scipts based on extension.


-- 
IOnut - Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"
  "Intellectual Property" is   nowhere near as valuable   as "Intellect"

BOFH excuse #150:
Arcserve crashed the server again