Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:16:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: some woes about rc.conf.site Message-ID: <199902072116.NAA26516@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199902072048.MAA07248@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:>
:> What do you think ? Or what are your experiences ?
:
:I hate it unreservedly. If we need a source of seeded default values,
:we should have rc.conf.default, uncommented, read-only. rc.conf is
:where people expect to make their changes, and it is immensely bogus to
:have sysinstall creating rc.conf.site which is quietly included *after*
:everything in rc.conf (so that when someone changes rc.conf, the change
:is overridden).
:
:--
My opinion is that since we have /etc/rc and /etc/rc.local, we might
as well use /etc/rc.conf and /etc/rc.conf.local the same way -- that
is, just as /etc/rc should not be touched by anyone, neither should
/etc/rc.conf be touched by anyone.
sysinstall ( and any other GUI configurator ) should mess with
/etc/rc.conf.site
The user messes with /etc/rc.conf.local
Perhaps the problem is that we are simply naming these things badly.
Frankly, I would rather get rid of rc.conf.site entirely and just leave
rc.conf and rc.conf.local -- and have sysinstall mess with rc.conf.local.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902072116.NAA26516>