Subject: Re: rc.local and rcorder(8)
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 06/25/2002 20:21:10
[ On Tuesday, June 25, 2002 at 16:41:15 (-0600), Rick Kelly wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: rc.local and rcorder(8)
> Well, my DNS server and main mail server is running 1.5.3RC1 with
> BIND 9.2.1. The newer BIND is installed in /usr/local/sbin. Now I
> could turn off BIND in /etc/rc.conf, and start named in /etc/rc.local,
> but some of the services in /etc/rc.d need named running. So I hacked the
> script to run /usr/local/sbin/named. Later on, when I rebooted, I found that
> I also had to hack the script to make sure that all the disks and partitions
> were mounted so that /usr/local was mounted.
I think Luke has already given the correct answer to that issue. :-)
> My fervent hope is that a registered pkg database for system files
> will be optional. The system I'm sitting in front of is running
> NetBSD 1.4.3. Somewhere between 1.3 and 1.4 the location of the pkg
> database changed. If I try to add any new packages or upgrade any
> existing packages, software disappears and doesn't get rebuilt.
Huh? My pkg database has always been in /var/db/pkg. I'm still
updating packages on 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.4.1, and some half-breed once upon
a time -current systems, and some much more -current systems, and
hopefully soon some 1.6beta systems too, all without moving or changing
or drastically hacking anything. You must have broken something on your
own. Don't blame such mistakes on the package system. Especially do
not blame such past problems on the future system! I would hope a time
will come that on a system if pkg_add is used for third-party software
then it will be required for the system files to be registered in the
pkg database too (even if they were not installed with pkg_add).
> Any software that I add to this machine gets built by hand and installed
> in /usr/local now.
Good for you -- I remember doing that once upon a time too. It works
great for one or two machines, or even a "cluster" on a local network.
> I don't see why the flexibility of the OS should be reduced. Removing
> /etc/rc.local reduces flexibility.
Didn't you read the phrase "by default" in what I wrote? Besides I only
suggested turning it off and then forcing those who want to use such
hacks to understand the implications of what they're doing within the
context of the rest of the system. Overall the flexibility of the
system has been greatly enhanced by /etc/rc.d et al, and even though
rc.local is just an ugly and literally unnecessary wart on its side, I
wouldn't expect it to go away entirely any time soon.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>