Greg Troxel wrote:

>I just commited an update to wip/quagga-devel to today's snapshot, but
>haven't really tested it.
>
>One problem is that the package installs rc.d scripts named e.g
>bgpd.sh, and the pkgsrc framework expects to have to create rc.d
>scripts from files in ${WRKSRC}.  So, I think the right thing is:
>
>a) change quagga to make rc.d scritps called  bgpd, not bgpd.sh.
>This will enable smooth usage with hand compilation outside of pkgsrc,
>with just cp'ing the files.
>  
>

Yeah, that's easy enough to do, and makes sense.

>b) tell pkgsrc/wip/quagga-devel/Makefile to expect the install target
>to have put the rc.d scripts in the right place (i pass a configure
>argument to make it do this).  I'm not clear on how to do this; right
>now the framework is doing an install of the scripts as well, to the
>non-.sh names.
>  
>

Well, the "right place" is probably different for a package than for 
by-hand... for a package, it wants to go in ${RC_EXAMPLEDIR}, and is 
then copied to /etc/rc.d (or wherever) if ${PKG_RCD_SCRIPTS} is yes.

>comments?
>
>
>Other thoughts:
>
>Is there any reason to keep the conditional compilation of Opaque
>LSAs, rather than just always doing that?
>  
>

I can't think of any offhand.

>isisd doesn't really work yet.  Anyone playing with it really should
>be using cvs quagga, fixing problems or writing code, and sending it
>in.  So it is not built/installed in the pkg.
>
>  
>

I agree.

>I think the net/quagga package should be much like the
>wip/quagga-devel, modulo distfile location and name.
>  
>

Sounds good to me, once we can clear up the issue of the 0.98.2 tarball 
not extracting under NetBSD...


+j