On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Tim Rightnour wrote:

> On 08-Feb-02 Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > I think there won't ever be that many package rc.d scripts. We could
> > just list all of them in basesrc/etc/defaults/rc.conf, and in the
> > corresponding file for sushi. This way, 1) the defaults/rc.conf (and the
> > form file for sushi?) only gets frobbed if it's out of date, 2) updating
> > the base system won't lose the defaults. Same principle if it's chosen
> > instead to use defaults/rc.pkg.conf, included by defaults/rc.conf.
>
> Thats not unreasonable to do right now, but it has issues.  Namely, that if a
> new package comes along that wants an rc.d script, sushi will have no knowledge
> of it, unless we somehow predicted it's arrival before the release. :)

So I'm looking at the form file. You just need to add a line or three
for each script, and it shows up in "sushi"? If so, then we just handle
the form file in step "1" above. We could embed the information in the
package rc.d script itself, or -- here's an idea -- add an
install_sushi() function, to the package scripts, only.

> It also might confuse some people, who see "apache" in thier configuration file,
> and turn it on, wondering why it doesn't start or work.

But you wouldn't want to remove the hook, while leaving the
"/etc/rc.conf" file unchanged. That could lead to some interesting
surprises, after the user installed a package that he had deinstalled
quite a long time ago. Likewise, it makes no sense to remove the default
entry from "/etc/defaults/rc.{,pkg.}conf, while the active setting
remains in "/etc/rc.conf".

The only solution I see, is to add a check to "sushi", so that it grays
out or otherwise complains about entries whose corresponding rc.d script
doesn't exist.

Frederick