Re: Moving rc.d scripts to base.tgz

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 09:01:39PM +0000, Michael van Elst wrote:
 > >I don't see that it's unreasonable to ask the small number of people
 > >who routinely make substantial modifications to the system to do so as
 > >source patches; in fact, as a general rule it's much easier to manage
 > >such modifications that way than as custom edits that have to be
 > >redone (often slightly differently) on every newly installed machine.
 > 
 > So instead of maintaining patches to etc (easily assisted by etcupdate)
 > you ask for maintaining local patches in source and the need to
 > build your system from source.

I'm not sure I'd call handling local mods with etcupdate easy, but
maybe etcupdate is (or has gotten) smarter about merging than I
realized.

 > If you think that the patches should be committed upstream to avoid
 > this then you assume these are generally accepted by all users instead
 > of just implementations of local policy or preference.

I think we need examples. Everything Robert Elz has cited should be
committed upstream, IMO. The sorts of things I'm assuming Mouse is
talking about (admittedly without justification) really are best
thought of and handled as source patches.

Also, I think the types of people likely to generate such changes
quite likely have other local mods and probably build the system from
source regardless. Certainly I do.

(Note that while I don't have any local patches to the periodic
scripts, I do have some local patches to other /etc things that I
carry around, and I've found that maintaining them as source patches
is by far the easiest way.)

 > I'll ask you where is the benefit to the user? Or even the developers..

Where's the cost?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost