[ On Saturday, February 9, 2002 at 15:54:28 (-0600), Frederick Bruckman wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Summary: Third-party rc.d scripts
>
> I now believe, the only reasonable way to handle this, is to make sure
> the package scripts don't conflict with anything in the base scripts.
> They should have unique names, like "pkg_named", and unique rcvars, so
> you could start, say, either "named" or "pkg_named" or both, just by
> twiddling the knobs in "/etc/rc.conf". This way we're free to install
> them into "/etc/rc.d", maybe even include them in some future base system.

Yes, that's a very good idea -- adding a common prefix (or suffix) to
the file names may also help appease the folks who don't want to mix
package and base files in the same directory....  At least with a unique
and self-documenting pattern to their names such files will be easily
identifiable.

> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> > 
> > A pkg_install (or pkg_activate, or
> > similar) script/program/etc. should be added to facilitate making a
> > package work on any given client system.
> 
> Interesting idea. I think it's not necessary, though: all the clients
> could, instead, sync up "/etc/rc.d/", "/etc/defaults/rc.{,pkg.}conf",
> and "/usr/share/sushi/system/rcconf/form" with the server. If there's
> something that they then all need enabled, enable it on one, and sync
> "/etc/rc.conf" with each other.

This would work, but only for rc.d scripts -- what about other
host-specific configuration files that packages have (the most notable
and most important perhaps being SSH, but many others have similar
requirements, such as apache, pine, etc., etc., etc.)?

-- 
								Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098;  <gwoods@acm.org>;  <g.a.woods@ieee.org>;  <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>