From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 8 22:00:43 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E52D16A405 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:00:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [69.147.83.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 322E413C4A8 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:00:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l18M0hBX013751 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:00:43 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l18M0gSW013749; Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:00:43 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 22:00:43 GMT Message-Id: <200702082200.l18M0gSW013749@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org From: Doug Barton Cc: Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Doug Barton List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:00:43 -0000 The following reply was made to PR conf/104884; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Doug Barton To: Brooks Davis Cc: Florent Thoumie , Norikatsu Shigemura , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:55:16 -0800 Brooks Davis wrote: > The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening. > I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces > in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in > CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable. How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry over usability. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection