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

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


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.

Deleted comment


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.