MySQL5, OS X 10.4.10, startups, etc.

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Oct 1, 2007, at 17:52, paul beard wrote:

> On 10/1/07, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> In the current way, the symlink is made in the destroot and handled
>> just like any other file in the port's manifest. On activate, it is
>> installed to the right place. On deactivate, it is removed. To start
>> the service, you "launchctl load" it and to stop it, you "launchctl
>> unload" it. This is all fairly easy and works.
>
> This assumes that people deactivate or otherwise that allow  
> MacPorts to clean up after itself. rm -rf /opt/local would leave  
> those broken symlinks. They don't really matter but as I said  
> earlier, the "nothing outside /opt/local" rule is bent in some  
> cases, this being one.

Yes, we do want MacPorts to install as much as possible inside $ 
{prefix}. But currently some things do get installed outside of the  
prefix. But IMHO the current uninstall instructions adequately  
address this issue. BTW, "rm -rf /opt/local" is not the extent of the  
uninstall instructions:

http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/wiki/ 
FAQ#HowdoIremoveoruninstallMacPorts

> And as for invoking launchct load statements, how is this different?
>
> launchctl  load /opt/local/etc/LaunchDaemons/org.macports.dbus/ 
> org.macports.dbus.plist
> launchctl  load /opt/local/etc/LaunchDaemons/org.macports.apache2/ 
> org.macports.apache2.plist
> launchctl  load /opt/local/etc/LaunchDaemons/org.macports.mysql5/ 
> org.macports.mysql5.plist
>
> from putting the plists in launchd's default search path? As  
> configured, launchctl looks in two places for plists: in /System/ 
> Library/LaunchDaemons, for Apple-owned stuff, in /Library/ 
> LaunchDaemons for user-installed/third-party stuff. I don't see a  
> big deal about another repository for plists. Maybe in future  
> releases launchd will allow additional directories to be added  
> instead of individual lines.
>
>> Your way would require someone to manually edit the file /etc/
>> launchd.conf, at least to remove a line from it. That's more
>> complicated than the current way, where a single launchctl line
>> starts or stops the service. Also, with your way, the service
>> wouldn't start or stop until the next startup. That's worse than what
>> we have now, where the service starts or stops immediately.
>
> see above: if launchctl works as it says on the tin, there is not  
> different between symlinks that point to /Library/LaunchDaemons and  
> the lines I have in /etc/launchd.conf.

Wait. Currently, MacPorts automatically puts the symlinks in /Library/ 
LaunchDaemons, then instructs you how to load (start) and unload  
(stop) as needed. Your proposition as I understood it was that the  
user would manually add and remove lines in /etc/launchd.conf. Are  
you now suggesting instead that MacPorts would automatically put the  
lines in /etc/launchd.conf? If so, why is that preferable to the  
current way? Currently, we add symlinks in /Library/LaunchDaemons,  
which is outside of ${prefix}. You propose modifying /etc/ 
launchd.conf, which is also outside of ${prefix}. At least the  
symlinks in /Library/LaunchDaemons have "macports" in the filenames  
so they're easier to find, and getting rid of them is as simple as a  
single "rm" command. Getting rid of a line in a conf file is more  
involved.

Also, since I'm not familiar with /etc/launchd.conf, I assume that  
the file is only scanned at system startup. Is that the case? If so,  
then adding to that file is worse than what we have now, where  
"launchctl load" will load the service immediately, and cause it to  
start at every subsequent system startup. Unless you're suggesting  
that the user should modify /etc/launchd.conf, and then also use the  
launchctl command to start the service now. If so, you've just added  
an extra step for the user, again for no apparent benefit.

>> Running a single launchctl command to start or stop a service is
>> easy. Conversely, adding a line to a file is easy, as you showed, but
>> removing a line from a file requires a more elaborate script. So why
>> change it to make it more difficult?
>
> I'm not arguing in favor of it. I'm just explaining it.  I have a  
> hard time believing that, given the power on tap, that there is no  
> way to add a commented line to /etc/launchd.conf
>
> launchctl  load /opt/local/etc/LaunchDaemons/org.macports.dbus/ 
> org.macports.dbus.plist # installed by macports
>
>
> and add a # character to the beginning of the line containing the  
> comment:
>
> sed -e s/^launchctl/#&/g <-  yes, I know that won't work, but you  
> get the idea: sed is not my native language.

Yes, of course it's possible to write something with sed or similar  
that adds or removes a specific line from a file. My point is that  
it's more difficult than executing a single launchctl statement. And  
since the current way works, I didn't understand why you think it's  
better to complicate things.

>> There's a slight problem with the current way. If the service is
>> running at the time that you uninstall the port, the software stays
>> running. And if the service is running at the time that you upgrade
>> the port, the old version stays running and the new version's plist
>> says the software isn't running and it's inconvenient to fix that
>> (manually edit the plist to show that the software is running,
>> launchctl unload the software, launchctl load it again). Would your
>> new way solve either of these problems? (I haven't tried so I don't
>> know.)
>
> Is there no pre-install step that could stop the service with the  
> existing plist, install, restart?

I don't think MacPorts should be stopping or starting any services  
automatically. That could be unexpected and bad.

I've been meaning to submit bug reports about these situations but  
hadn't gotten around to it yet.

> Again, I'm not arguing in favor of doing it this way, I'm just  
> explaining it. Perhaps if it's more clearly understood, a  
> comparison can be made.

Ok. Then I'll say that I acknowledge that MacPorts could do it your  
way instead of how it does it now, but I don't see any advantage to  
making that change at this point, rather I currently see  
disadvantages, so I don't think MacPorts should change this right  
now, until someone shows why it's better.