Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 21:51:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: "Benjamin F. Burke" <ben@dubuque365.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bridge config in /etc/rc (patch) Message-ID: <20030506214845.X5620@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <1052215193.41902.130.camel@watchtower.office.parksmediagroup.com> References: <011901c31390$7aef5730$0300000a@antalus> <20030505225826.G666@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <20030506002824.G666@znfgre.qbhto.arg> <1052215193.41902.130.camel@watchtower.office.parksmediagroup.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Tue, 6 May 2003, Benjamin F. Burke wrote:
> 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.
Experienced users can fend for themselves regarding edge cases like bridge
configurations. That's what rc.local is for. I'm worried about not
overwhelming new users.
> 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?
Sorry, the patch you sent implementing that option was lost in your
e-mail. Can you resend it? If you're confused by this response, see the
archives.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030506214845.X5620>