blair at orcaware.com
Sat Mar 3 23:38:27 PST 2007
Weissmann Markus wrote:
> On 03.03.2007, at 10:48, Randall Wood wrote:
>> Is this +no_startupitem variant really smart?
>> I recently had a request to add a +without_startupitem variant to a
>> port I maintain and rejected the request; since startupitems simply
>> enable a port to be started at boot time, but do not cause a port to
>> be booted at start time, it simply seems stupid to deliberately
>> cripple a server port such that a user would have to reinstall it if
>> they wanted to start the port at boot time later.
>> BTW: If the variant is to be retained, can it be named
>> +without_startupitem instead?
> The best way out of this would be to perform some port magic (that needs
> to be developed first...); this would be something along the idea Landon
> proposed for the Python ports (py-/py24-/py25-):
> We need a "common code" file that gets included by multiple Portfiles.
> The best thing imho would be, if we enable ports not to be recognized by
> the name "Portfile" but by a suffix - this way multiple Portfiles can
> live in one directory - e. g. apache2.
> Then we can create a common file with e. g. version, distfiles, etc. and
> two Portfiles "apache2" and "apache2-server". Those would both include
> the common file with e. g. the description, version number,
> dependencies, etc. but would consist of the "base apache2 installation"
> and the "startup-foo" respectively.
> PS: Oh and yes: As long as we don't have a clean solution like this, I'd
> say: Nuke the whatever_startupitem variant and create a "-server" Port -
> this way everybody can get happy.
That seems like a lot of work for one variant. I say keep it as is
still the new include method can be worked out.
While we're on the subject, it would be good to standardize on server
startups. MySQL doesn't enable it by default.
More information about the macports-dev