On Fri, 16 May 2003, Frederick Bruckman wrote:

> > > Another possibility would be to simply choose unique names for the
> > > pacakge scripts, like "bind9" or "bind9-pkg". There can't be that many
> > > that overlap, anyhow.
> >
> > 	It prevents us from providing a simple 'drop in' replacement
> > 	of system scripts with package ones.
>
> It's still very simple. Recall the original post that kicked off
> this thread. (The poster was running the wrong daemon for months).
> If the message had said,
>
>    "To start the "sshd" daemon supplied by this package at
>     boot-time, add ``opensshd-pkg=YES'' to "/etc/rc.conf".
>     Then, you may run ``/etc/rc.d/opensshd-pkg start'' to
>     start it immediately."
>
> the user would never have been confused about which daemon were
> running. Observe the advantages over other alternatives:
>
> 1) There's no obstacle to copying everything into "/etc/rc.d", even
> on bulk building machines. Conceptually, all the scripts live there
> anyhow, even if they're not always installed on every single machine
> (although we could still leave a knob for that step).
>
> 2) There's exactly one file to edit, and one command to start, any
> daemon. The user has complete control. If the new package doesn't fly,
> the user can switch back to the base daemon with a few keystrokes.
>
> 3) No changes required to the package tools, and no variations in
> pkgsrc to support. (All the variables will still be available for
> people who wish to hack pkgsrc internals, but we won't have any
> need to document, nor to explain the hacks to new users.)

	I would prefer to not have the _pkg suffix, but I would go
	along with the majority.
	I think people setting up complete systems using pkgsrc
	(generally Linux) might want an easy way to turn it off,
	but that should be feasible.

	Should we try to achieve consensus on tech-pkg? :)

-- 
		David/absolute          -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --