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

[Florent Thoumie]

On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 18:21 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> 
> > Yes, that's what I (wanted to) say. ("my" then = post-MFC, post-fix_ports).
> > Pav's PR will get us support for this in bsd.port.mk, the rest is
> > fixing the ports to be rc.d compatible and repo-copies.
> 
> That's great, although ironically I _just_ ran into a situation where that 
> is not the ideal way to do it. :)  I am working on updating misc/compat5x to 
> use an rc.d-style script, and tried doing it the way that you suggested, 
> with compat5x.in. When bsd.port.mk tried to create the boot script however, 
> I got an error because work/compat5x already existed, it was the directory 
> in work where the tarball unpacked itself. Most of the time this is not 
> going to be a problem, as the source directory will be versioned (like 
> foopkg-1.2.3), but this is a corner case that should be kept in mind.
> 
> For now I'm going to suggest using compat5x.sh for this particular case, it 
> can be adjusted down the road if needed.

	FWIW, I like having .sh.in instead of .in because you 
	immediately know that it's a startup script, and it's not that 
	hard to remove a .sh suffix in shell.

-- 
Florent Thoumie
flz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc/attachments/20051218/ce323f56/attachment.bin