Subject: Re: HEADS UP: RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR changed to share/examples/rc.d
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Havard Eidnes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/29/2004 12:42:10
> All these arguments sound like ``We can't handle pkgsrc rc.d script=
> exactly as we do for basesrc, so we can't handle them at all.'' rathe=
> than the more constructive question of ``What would be needed to
> handle pkgsrc rc.d scripts?'' and then move to implement that.
"What he said!"
It seems to me that there the goals underlying the current discussion
have not been explicitly stated, and that too manu unstated underlying
assumptions are being taken into account.
Let me try a few:
o It should be straight-forward to add and enable use of services
provided by binary packages. This clearly means that manual
copying of rc.d files because they were installed "somewhere else"
is going in the wrong direction.
o There is no good reason that I can see that a default installation
from (pkg)source and a default installation from a binary package
should result in a different result.