Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:32:57 -0400 From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: OpenBSD dhclient incoming Message-ID: <1118964777.21992.0.camel@rushlight.kf8nh.com> In-Reply-To: <20050616220515.GC20431@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20050615061009.GA11914@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <001501c5720b$aceb84d0$0b2a15ac@SMILEY> <20050616164747.GB21733@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050616.142507.85367515.imp@bsdimp.com> <20050616205033.GF13900@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <20050616210404.GM33118@bunrab.catwhisker.org> <20050616220515.GC20431@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 15:05 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:04:04PM -0700, David Wolfskill wrote:
> > >From the perspective that NIC-specific variables are of the form
> > "ifconfig_${NIC}" (e.g., ifconfig_lo0; ifconfig_ed0; ifconfig_xl0),
> > might it make at least as much sense to call it "ifconfig_default" (or
> > something similar)?
>
> I'm divided on that one. The problem is that users may want to name an
> interface "default" and this would break that. I like the symetry and
> the sort order of ifconfig_default, but I'm concerned about exceptions
> to the namespace as well. I'm somewhat tempted by ifconfig_DEFAULT.
<thinking outside the box>
ifconfig_="...defaults..."
</>
--
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl] allbery@kf8nh.com
system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon univ. KF8NH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1118964777.21992.0.camel>