Re: Moving rc.d scripts to base.tgz

[Julio Merino <jmmv%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:11 AM,  <markucz%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>> Why do you think that's a design decision?  It may just well be an
>> overlook of the implementation that really needs addressing.
> It doesn't make any difference to me. If it's a bug, so far it hasn't been
> recognised as such and it never has been such a big issue that I would bother
> others with it.

... because you have been maintaining a local patch ~forever with no
incentive for submission upstream.  That does not mean it's not a bug
(if it is at all, I don't know!).

>> You can change anything you like locally; that's why you have the
>> source tree.  The point is: why is this change any different than,
>> say, a change to /bin/ls ?  (More below.)
> My point is that scripts are easier to write, easier to modify, parts of
> them can be generated on the fly and eval'd, and most importantly, changes
> take effect immediately. No recompilation needed. That is, I believe, the
> reason why the _executables_ in rc.d are scripts and not binaries like ls.
> Are you saying I am supposed to modify /usr/src/etc/rc.d and rebuild every
> time I want to add one line?

Yes.  Just like you add one line to whatever other part of the system.

Please be specific and provide a case where you need to change the
standard scripts to do something different and you cannot do so by
using the .local counterparts.  All the cases I have heard of so far
can easily be addressed by means of configuration.

Anyway, let's just stop worrying about this.  There are things that
really need to be addressed first (like allowing changing the order of
execution of the scripts or finding a way to deal with pkgsrc rc.d)
before any move can be considered.

-- 
Julio Merino / @jmmv