Removal of RC_SUBR and RC_SUBR_SUFFIX
Doug Barton
Hash: RIPEMD160
Howdy,
As should be obvious by now I'm following through on my previously
stated plans to remove the no longer necessary %%RC_SUBR%% and
%%RC_SUBR_SUFFIX%% from the ports tree. In a few cases where
substitutions for the former are still necessary because the script is
actually in the source distribution instead of in the ports tree, I've
substituted the literal string "/etc/rc.subr" for the macro. The _SUFFIX
macro has been a no-op for years now, and has been removed.
I will do one more grep through the entire ports tree tomorrow to make
sure I have taken care of everything, but I'm pretty sure at this point
that we're ready for the final step, the removal of the related code
from bsd.port.mk. To that end I've produced the following:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=145092
Once that change is made, the final step will be to remove
sysutils/rc_subr.
While I did make one error, I've tried very hard to make sure that all
of my changes actually are no-ops, but of course if anyone sees any
breakage please speak up ASAP.
Regards,
Doug
- --
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
iEYEAREDAAYFAkuu+gsACgkQyIakK9Wy8Psl/gCfcsqMNYsz1NW6/AYxl/94oIvM
QFEAoMLJVkxhd6+KrthJ4I0yvroSzop6
=yU3N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Doug Barton
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 03/27/10 23:41, Doug Barton wrote:
> I will do one more grep through the entire ports tree tomorrow to make
> sure I have taken care of everything, but I'm pretty sure at this point
> that we're ready for the final step, the removal of the related code
> from bsd.port.mk. To that end I've produced the following:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=145092
Checking out a clean tree and doing one more grep found 2 stragglers,
but I am now convinced that the RC_SUBR and RC_SUBR_SUFFIX macros are
removed from the tree to the best of my ability. So, portmgr please do
your thing with the patch in that PR. :)
Doug
- --
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
iEYEAREDAAYFAkuv2a0ACgkQyIakK9Wy8PuyrgCgt8WDXEDZqTjhgp6/hhZh5pxN
x0EAn1vRomS6eRVsWBrPyjgyIUIiooW8
=qYhY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Christian Weisgerber
> As should be obvious by now I'm following through on my previously
> stated plans to remove the no longer necessary %%RC_SUBR%% and
> %%RC_SUBR_SUFFIX%% from the ports tree.
Does it still make sense to use
rcvar=`set_rcvar`
as recommended by rc.subr(8) or should we just use
rcvar=${name}_enable
as shown in the Porter's Handbook example?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Doug Barton
> Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> As should be obvious by now I'm following through on my previously
>> stated plans to remove the no longer necessary %%RC_SUBR%% and
>> %%RC_SUBR_SUFFIX%% from the ports tree.
>
> Does it still make sense to use
>
> rcvar=`set_rcvar`
>
> as recommended by rc.subr(8) or should we just use
>
> rcvar=${name}_enable
>
> as shown in the Porter's Handbook example?
Either one is fine. I've always regarded set_rcvar as a little bit too
much abstraction, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong" to use it.
Doug
--
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso