Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <tech-pkg@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 05/02/2000 12:38:47
On Tue, 2 May 2000, Greg A. Woods wrote:

> [ On Tuesday, May 2, 2000 at 14:37:29 (+0200), Dr. Rene Hexel wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Proposed rc.d changes....
> >
> > Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> > 
> > > Not that I know of. We still follow the "all in /usr/pkg" line, else we
> > > could give up /usr/pkg altogether. (Few exceptions exist, though)
> > 
> >   Yes, you are right, of course.  Somehow I was under the impression
> > that, lately, most packages use /etc instead of PREFIX/etc.  This is
> > only true of packages with host-specific configurations (like ssh). 
> > Sorry for causing any confusion ;-)
> I would say the confusion is in using $PREFIX/etc in the first place.

I find myself agreeing with Greg on this one. The files in $PREFIX/etc
aren't tracked anyway, or they're not supposed to be: the example
config should be installed to $PREFIX/share/examples/foo; the active
one is copied to $PREFIX/etc or /etc and forgotten about. So it would
be more principled to put the configs in /etc, in that you could then
do a "pkg_info -F" on any file under $PREFIX to see who it belongs to.

(I also favor /etc/foo/ for any package "foo" that needs more than one
configuration file, like "ntp" or "xdm.)

In principle, I think it's a good idea to craft a NetBSD rc.d script
for every package that needs one -- I do wonder who's going to do it.
On the question of whether to activate all package daemons by default,
or not, I have no opinion.