From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 21 20:35:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB32106564A; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:35:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1DC151252; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EF2430B.5070903@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:35:23 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff References: <4EEF0124.4000902@FreeBSD.org> <4EEF3B22.8010401@FreeBSD.org> <4EF0499D.4070000@FreeBSD.org> <20111220191520.GA70684@FreeBSD.org> <20111221015241.GE68792@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20111221125539.GF70684@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: <20111221125539.GF70684@glebius.int.ru> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current , Brooks Davis , Dimitry Andric Subject: Re: r228700 can't dhclient em0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:35:24 -0000 On 12/21/2011 4:55 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Brooks, > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 07:52:41PM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: > B> While this is the documented path, it's not actually been required > B> except in edge cases for ages (the last I can remember is a.out->elf). > B> It's been long enough that I don't think we can really make people do > B> it except for a short period of time in HEAD. I believe it's > B> unacceptable for a release to release upgrade. > > I have provided API compatibility in r228768. I have tested it with an > ifconfig binary taken from 9.0 installation. So does that mean that if I upgrade to the latest HEAD from a system built before the ifconfig changes that when I reboot my network will come up? > I hope, this change > would satisfy you, and you won't say that "We almost certainly need to > back r228571 out". I think Brooks raised some really good points about backward compatibility, but it sounds to me like you've addressed them. In any case, my original concern was limited to "Do we need an UPDATING entry?" :) > The in_control() and in6_control() are getting more and more hairy :( > I'd eager to remove the shim in the 11.x timeline. > > > > Since subject mentions "dhclient", I must notice that the dhclient-script > always relied on a bug in in_control(). The bug was fixed here: > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=228313 > > Later the dhclient-script was fixed: > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=228463 Right, I saw those go by, which is why I tried not to jump too hard on "ifconfig is broken" since I wasn't sure which change was causing my problem. It sounds like you're saying that perhaps I still won't be able to get the network up after booting a new kernel without also installing part of the new world? Perhaps an UPDATING entry is needed after all? > Hey, this policy greatly discourages hacking on bugs and new > features... :( Learning how to innovate while providing backwards compatibility is a valuable skill. Think of this as an opportunity. :) Doug -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/