Re: Moving rc.d scripts to base.tgz

[rudolf <netbsd%eq.cz@localhost>]

Julio Merino wrote:
> Every time I run etcupdate and notice differences in the rc.d scripts,
> I can't stop wondering why these binaries are part of etc.tgz (other
> than them being in /etc/).
>
> The rationale:
> * All the rc.d scripts (with the exception of rc.local) are binaries that should
>    not be changed manually: rc.conf and rc.conf.d exist for a reason.
> * If the scripts must be edited to implement some reasonable configuration
>    change, then we have got a shortcoming in our configuration system that
>    should be addressed.
> * If the scripts do not address someone's preferences, and these cannot be
>    justified as configuration variables... well, this is no different than, say,
>    /etc/cp not fulfilling someone's desires that require local patching of the
>    source tree.
>
> The proposal: move the rc.d scripts (which include /etc/rc.d/*,
> /etc/rc, /etc/rc.subr and /etc/rc.shutdown, but NOT rc.local) from
> etc.tgz to base.tgz?  The path locations would remain the same.


This could as well be seen as a shortcoming of etcupdate. You have a 
possibility to set IGNOREFILES, but there is no FORCEFILES variable (or 
something like that; e.g. set ``FORCEFILES = /etc/rc.d/*'' in 
/etc/etcupdate.conf).

I don't understand, why you talk about the rc.d scripts as about 
binaries. I've seen emails, where people talk about the need to change 
the rcorder configuration. To me, these scripts are configuration 
scripts and it seems natural to use them this way.

r.