Re: Moving rc.d scripts to base.tgz

[Marc Balmer <mbalmer%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Am 14.04.11 18:34, schrieb Julio Merino:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt%ir.bbn.com@localhost> wrote:
>> I think it's basically a reasonable proposal.
>>
>> I use etcmanage to update, and it deals with this automatically, so the
>> current behavior is not causing me problems.
>>
>> Two concerns:
>>
>>  The upgrade path (to a system with the different set packing) should
>>  not be disruptive.  I think that needs to be designed before proceeding.
>>
>>  Currently, everything in /etc and /dev/MAKEDEV{,.local} are in
>>  *etc.tgz.   Programs that munge /etc to do updates need to be able to
>>  figure out what's in the "should be managed as /etc" and what's
>>  "non-etc base system".  Probably the mtree files are adequate for
>>  this, but it bears a little thought.  Looking at how things are now,
>>  this is arguably not a new problem.
> 
> That's a good point.  I think the mtree idea is reasonable and should
> work...  except that, usually, you'd extract base.tgz first and later
> use etcupdate, which means that by the time you run etcupdate or
> postinstall you'd have already overridden any previous manual changes.
>  Oops.
> 
> Without putting too much thought into it right now, the only way I see
> to do this safely would be to install the files somewhere other than
> /etc/ and then teach postinstall to install symlinks in /etc/ or
> similar.  Otherwise, we'd need some transitional period in which
> postinstall complains loudly about any local modifications and gives
> you a deadline on which the swap will happen.
> 
> (If we had a "system updater" script, we'd just put all this logic into it.)
> 
>> And then:
>>
>>  How far do you go?  What about /etc/services?   Arguably, if that's
>>  wrong one should fix the sources and reinstall, as including new
>>  services is a bug fix rather than local configuration.
> 
> I had missed that.  Yes, this should also be moved... and also daily,
> weekly and monthly (all of these have conf files and also have .local
> counterparts).

I am not so sure about /etc/services.  I actually do put local stuff in
this file.  I would constrain this "update" mechanism to binaries only.
 services and other files there _are_ user serviceable parts of NetBSD.