Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 00:21:00 +0100 (CET) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: enabling bridge-support in rc.conf? Message-ID: <200001042321.AAA35376@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de> In-Reply-To: <84tub7$arm$1@atlantis.rz.tu-clausthal.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Szilveszter Adam wrote in list.freebsd-stable:
> Just to get it clear: I did not suggest it to be enabled without user
> intervention. All I
> had in mind was to move this particular parameter to rc.conf (or similar)
> instead of the sysctl.
Well, that's debatable.
(Personally, as I said earlier in this thread, I don't think
that each and every sysctl knob should have an equivalent
rc.conf setting. Only the most common ones. I think rc.conf
is already bloated and cluttered with stuff, some of which is
not needed by 99% of the users and just might cause confusion,
and the remaining 1% certainly would know how to throw the
switches without rc.conf.)
> The problem with sysctls is only one: They tend to be badly documented.
The bridge(4) manpage documents the sysctl in question _very_
well. Please read it if you don't believe me.
I agree that _some_ sysctls are not well-documented (but as I
said before: docs don't exist until someone writes them).
But the specific sysctl in question (see the subject line) is
very well documented.
Regards
Oliver
--
Oliver Fromme, Leibnizstr. 18/61, 38678 Clausthal, Germany
(Info: finger userinfo:olli@dorifer.heim3.tu-clausthal.de)
"In jedem Stück Kohle wartet ein Diamant auf seine Geburt"
(Terry Pratchett)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001042321.AAA35376>