Attck of teh AzN Cow flu! (cowbert) wrote in freebsd_users,
Attck of teh AzN Cow flu!
cowbert
freebsd_users

RCng rant

Wondering why /usr/local/etc/rc.d scripts are invoked via knobs in /etc/rc.conf. It seems like they should remain more separated (have a /usr/local/etc/rc.conf instead). I haven't looked for any bikeshed discussions on this from the past few years, but would anyone like to fill me in? :)
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 3 comments

Deleted comment

cowbert

May 29 2008, 07:46:03 UTC 9 years ago Edited:  May 29 2008, 07:48:14 UTC

Back in 4-STABLE, /usr/local/etc/rc.d scripts weren't affected by stuff in rc.conf, so to me, the RCng way seemed like a very "unportable" way to do things. I try to maintain a strict separation between base and ports. And I'm not advocating for rc.conf "all over the place" just the one in /usr/local for ports. Oh well.

Also, I don't use portupgrade either, but I still like having +REQUIRED_BY around (although at some point the one for glib2 on my system disappeared [probably me botching a "manual" portupgrade] which is a shame...).

DFlyBSD moved entirely to pkgsrc. On a related note, I had at one time tried to roll my own pkgsrc-based Linux From Scratch, trying mirroring the way that BSD buildworld uses /usr/obj, but I never really figured it out (since there is this spaghetti gcc/binutils bootstrapping issue). On top of that, I hadn't figured out how I would then package the installed binaries to create a bootable image and install scripts. So then I was thinking about a Gentoo base+pkgsrc install but apparently they don't support Stage1 installs anymore. I haven't looked at Stage3s yet though, which seems somewhat promising. Anyway I am falling off topic :)
This is what /etc/rc.conf.local is for.
Well, maybe that's not precisely what it's for, but it works well in that role.