Subject: Re: /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d/*
To: Michael G. Schabert <>
From: Quentin Garnier <>
List: current-users
Date: 03/16/2003 11:42:44
Le Sun, 16 Mar 2003 05:14:22 -0500
Michael G. Schabert a =E9crit :
> At 12:23 AM -0500 3/16/03, wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 03:01:35PM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
> >>  Should /etc/rc.conf by default contain the line:
> >>
> >>  . /usr/pkg/etc/rc.conf
> >>
> >>  at its end?
> >>
> >>  This would roughly complete the root-pkg split.
> >
> >Is /usr mounted when this would happen?
> Moot. If /usr is not mounted, then /usr/pkg/bin is unavailable, so it=20
> wouldn't matter if /usr/pkg/etc isn't there. In other words, if we=20
> did things as they have been suggested (moving the scripts to=20
> /etc/rc.d and using /etc/rc.conf), and /usr were unmounted when rc=20
> was running, no packages would be started since the binaries aren't=20
> there. The scripts are only as good as the binaries that they're=20
> calling.

rc.d scripts must be in /etc because at the time of rcorder, /usr is not
mounted (unless a trivial case). Given the dependancies though, /usr is
mounted when the time comes for those package to run (they will typically
depend on DAEMON).

The hack suggested by Greywolf would work (rc.conf is reread by each
script) but the problem of rcorder will remain, unless we add a rc.d
script named 'pkg' that will rcorder scripts in /usr/pkg/etc/rc.d. This
has the drawback of not letting the user precisely define globally the
order of scripts.

Quentin Garnier -
"Feels like I'm fiddling while Rome is burning down.
Should I lay my fiddle down and take a rifle from the ground ?"
Leigh Nash/Sixpence None The Richer, Paralyzed, Divine Discontents, 2002.