Subject: Re: HEADS UP: RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR changed to share/examples/rc.d
To: Todd Vierling <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 12/31/2004 02:48:59
[ On Thursday, December 30, 2004 at 15:56:03 (-0500), Todd Vierling wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: RCD_SCRIPTS_EXAMPLEDIR changed to share/examples/rc.d
> If the scripts were changed so that the NO (i.e., don't run server) defaults
> were implied, then what would be *bad* about having all the scripts in a
> ready-to-go location?  The idea here is that daemons should be usable simply
> by editing a config to enable them -- without having to copy things around a
> fs (or remembering how to do that via an env var[*]).  Many other OS's do
> the same; the concept is pretty well tried and tested.


> I still haven't heard why the default for rc.d scripts should be not to
> install them, when the rest of CONF_FILES and SUPPORT_FILES default to being
> installed.  To date, it seems to me like being different solely for the sake
> of being different.

I think if I remember correcly the primary argument originally used
against automatically having rc.d scripts installed into place even if
the default rcvar setting was intended to disable them was that not all
such scripts in pkgsrc at the time honoured rcvar settings -- i.e. some
third party scripts, at that time, had no rcvar controls and always
started whatever they were intended to start whenever they were run (and
indeed some/all of them failed to honour their command-line parameters
too and would always try to start the daemon even if the parameter was

						Greg A. Woods

H:+1 416 218-0098  W:+1 416 489-5852 x122  VE3TCP  RoboHack <>
Planix, Inc. <>          Secrets of the Weird <>