Re: smf and rc.d

[Richard PALO <richard%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Le 19/09/15 22:03, Jonathan Perkin a écrit :
> * On 2015-09-19 at 15:22 BST, Richard PALO wrote:
> 
>> At "real" install time, INIT_SYSTEM should determine whether to
>> install the packages rc.d files to RCD_SCRIPTS_DIR or to install the
>> smf file. I believe share/examples should always have both.
> 
> I don't see any merit in that.  It would add significant complexity,
> and be very fragile having to determine INIT_SYSTEM at install time.
> Where would you set it, pkg_install.conf?  Environment variable?
> 

In mk.conf as usual.  By default it is, on SunOS, INIT_SYSTEM?= smf.
No different then things like X11_TYPE, BDB_DEFAULT or PSQL_VERSION_DEFAULT etc.

> Also, why would you want rc.d scripts when you have SMF support?  And
> what happens when we introduce launchd/systemd/etc support, do all
> those INIT_SYSTEM's get installed too even though they may be
> completely incompatible with the target system?
> 
missing SMF support?  good example... as a test, setting INIT_SYSTEM=rc.d
in cups-filters permits a successful packaging.

Also, they are installed in examples, for just that reason. If perhaps not directly
useable, at least the basis is there for tailoring to local needs.

Good point as to the other INIT_SYSTEMs... does this mean that these are
now pkgsrc variants, as binaries no longer globally work 
(although it is only the copied init system file that is different). 
seems perhaps like a step in the wrong direction...

> Basically I see no advantage to doing it that way and plenty of
> drawbacks and inconsistencies.
> 
okay, perhaps, but there is an anomaly to be worked out at present.


-- 
Richard PALO