From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 20 10:06:56 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010D7106564A; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:06:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mmakonnen@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gy0-f182.google.com (mail-gy0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A14EA8FC14; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ghbg20 with SMTP id g20so2459336ghb.13 for ; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 02:06:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5Q2rpMTPO2TmA/Sy0Mv6ilD3jkZUTRcbt06a2RmEqL0=; b=God6xEflEVqL6jfPIRQ6HOrwEQhwFDX+jpzhXjsEKk1GUaKiUt255TKbXlIz7lexYW WBbHcHodHa5fgv4KH1E1WOjH5O843JwDC05XVoxekvQJoQ/7MhHc5285eE0lYT7/wsY+ 9WNIkyYLzvfdYvaPrNjTfkQ0CmnB6iBKZAYO8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.118.164 with SMTP id l24mr1898733yhh.59.1321782082385; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 01:41:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: mmakonnen@gmail.com Received: by 10.147.39.12 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Nov 2011 01:41:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3EG8fAEe6lZEtr/D6Pw60YTcoYU@YnbH/K3/Y1Z96RV2jTofcGuSPJI> References: <4EC6C9A4.3000006@delphij.net> <3EG8fAEe6lZEtr/D6Pw60YTcoYU@YnbH/K3/Y1Z96RV2jTofcGuSPJI> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:41:22 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: TXwpH2Vf5q3uOzvCx56gTwtPBG4 Message-ID: From: Mike Telahun Makonnen To: Eygene Ryabinkin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Garrett Cooper , freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, Doug Barton , d@delphij.net Subject: Re: Annoying ERROR: 'wlan0' is not a DHCP-enabled interface X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:06:56 -0000 Hi all, > I would say that my (ab)use of it in the patch perfectly fits the > cited usage. =A0That's not an excuse if the semantics of rc_quiet will > be different from its current usage, but since we have no > well-documented semantics apart from "Don't output some diagnostics" > inside /etc/rc.subr, may be we can just extend this explanation based > on the current usage and the common sense, add that to the manual page > of rc.subr and go on? > > Any thoughts on this? The rc_quiet knob was introduced to prevent devd spamming the console when starting services that weren't enabled in rc.conf. It was also overloaded to prevent unnecessary boot time clutter on the console. The rationale was that if you set a service to start during boot you don't want a gazillion "bar started" messages to cause the one "Error: foo not started" message that you would really be interested in seeing to scroll out of the screen buffer. It was used for this purpose in several scripts in rc.d, but it caused quite a ruckus at the time (and I was too distracted by other work to continue working on it) so its use was mostly removed from the scripts under /etc/rc.d. It was not intended to mask "error" or "debug" messages. As far as I can tell this discussion affects two groups of people: 1. You didn't configure dhcp on an interface 2. You *thought* you configured an interface for dhcp but it's not getting an address and there is no feedback if you're in group 1 you *don't* want to see a message that says the interface is not configured for dhcp. If you're in group 2 you *do" want to know. So, is it more annoying for those in group 1 to get a message about dhcp not being set every time an interface is started or for those in group 2 to try to start an interface and not get any feedback when dhcp is not enabled? Cheers, Mike.