From owner-freebsd-current Tue Oct 24 14:58:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB82437B479 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9OLu7421370; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:56:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: Warner Losh Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new rc.network6 and rc.firewall6 In-Reply-To: Message from Warner Losh of "Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:29:33 MDT." <200010241829.MAA17470@harmony.village.org> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:56:07 -0700 Message-ID: <21367.972424567@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [redirected to just -current; I'm not sure what this has to do with -net] > I agree. I've been using them for a while on my dog slow Windows CE > machine. There were some minor issues when they were first committed > to NetBSD on some platforms (due to a too early use of ps and some > brokeness in ps on pmax, for example), but these were quickly > resolved. So, who wants to do a proof-of-concept implementation for -current which integrates with our existing rc.conf mechanism? In order to obey POLA, we should at least have the separate scripts switch off the same knobs whenever possible. It's something I'd be willing to do, I guess. I have some history with the rc.foo files. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message