From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 19 18:05:21 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B761065673 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:05:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx23.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 722F28FC19 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:05:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 31445 invoked by uid 399); 19 Apr 2010 18:05:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.145?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 19 Apr 2010 18:05:20 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4BCC9B5D.5020603@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:05:17 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Reilly References: <20100418213727.GA98129@icarus.home.lan> <20100418232420.GA4620@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <20100418232420.GA4620@duncan.reilly.home> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: rc(8) script -- waiting for the network to become usable X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 18:05:21 -0000 On 4/18/2010 4:24 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote: > By way of discussion, I'd just like to re-iterate what I > said the first time around: it must be understood that this > sort of thing is a (necessary) hacky-workaround that should > ultimately be unnecessary. While I find the discussion about launchd-type facilities interesting, we have a real problem at the moment and now we have a real solution for it. Jeremy, since no one has criticized your idea on a technical basis why don't you run it by the -net and -rc lists to be sure that it's technically sound, then I would be inclined to move forward with it. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/