Date: 06 May 2003 04:59:53 -0500 From: "Benjamin F. Burke" <ben@dubuque365.com> To: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bridge config in /etc/rc (patch) Message-ID: <1052215193.41902.130.camel@watchtower.office.parksmediagroup.com> In-Reply-To: <20030506002824.G666@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <011901c31390$7aef5730$0300000a@antalus> <20030505225826.G666@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <015601c3139d$e5ae3b60$0300000a@antalus> <20030506002824.G666@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 02:50, Doug Barton wrote: > True, but that's another step down the road of "How do we deal with the > issue of $BIGNUM conf options in a way that users can handle?" Our current > solution for that is to include them all in /etc/defaults/rc.conf, and > mostly in rc.conf.5. I'm not sure that solution scales, but I'm equally > uncomfortable with the idea of UNdocumented options. I wonder how many experienced freebsd users really dislike having to use the current rc.conf setup. If it ain't broke... But if this is about ease of use for the less-experienced, why not keep putting all the options in /etc/defaults/rc.conf, and create a sysinstall-like interface to them that new users can run? Actually, why not add rc.conf-editing functionality to sysinstall? The only prerequisites I can think of for this are a more parseable option-grouping syntax for rc.conf and a database of ultra-friendly option descriptions, which the man page already has a good start on. If you think it's a good idea, I'd be happy to take a crack at a prototype. Cheers, Ben Burke
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1052215193.41902.130.camel>