Subject: Re: Summary: Third-party rc.d scripts
To: NetBSD Packages Technical Discussion List <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 02/09/2002 18:30:08
[ On Saturday, February 9, 2002 at 15:54:28 (-0600), Frederick Bruckman wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Summary: Third-party rc.d scripts
> I now believe, the only reasonable way to handle this, is to make sure
> the package scripts don't conflict with anything in the base scripts.
> They should have unique names, like "pkg_named", and unique rcvars, so
> you could start, say, either "named" or "pkg_named" or both, just by
> twiddling the knobs in "/etc/rc.conf". This way we're free to install
> them into "/etc/rc.d", maybe even include them in some future base system.

Yes, that's a very good idea -- adding a common prefix (or suffix) to
the file names may also help appease the folks who don't want to mix
package and base files in the same directory....  At least with a unique
and self-documenting pattern to their names such files will be easily

> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > 
> > A pkg_install (or pkg_activate, or
> > similar) script/program/etc. should be added to facilitate making a
> > package work on any given client system.
> Interesting idea. I think it's not necessary, though: all the clients
> could, instead, sync up "/etc/rc.d/", "/etc/defaults/rc.{,pkg.}conf",
> and "/usr/share/sushi/system/rcconf/form" with the server. If there's
> something that they then all need enabled, enable it on one, and sync
> "/etc/rc.conf" with each other.

This would work, but only for rc.d scripts -- what about other
host-specific configuration files that packages have (the most notable
and most important perhaps being SSH, but many others have similar
requirements, such as apache, pine, etc., etc., etc.)?

								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <>;  <>;  <>
Planix, Inc. <>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <>