From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Apr 7 11:36:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA01255 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mole.mole.org (marmot.mole.org [204.216.57.191]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA01245 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from mail@localhost) by mole.mole.org (8.6.12/8.6.12) id SAA00537; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 18:37:43 GMT Received: from meerkat.mole.org(206.197.192.110) by mole.mole.org via smap (V1.3) id sma000534; Mon Apr 7 18:37:20 1997 Received: (from mrm@localhost) by meerkat.mole.org (8.6.11/8.6.9) id LAA17852; Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:34:29 -0700 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 11:34:29 -0700 From: "M.R.Murphy" Message-Id: <199704071834.LAA17852@meerkat.mole.org> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, terry@lambert.org Subject: Re: on the subject of changes to -RELEASEs... Cc: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Crap. Whilst you can, certainly, devise a pathological case to > > justify your claims, the reality is that the sort of changes mooted > > will not, on the whole, mandate /etc/ changes, and the proposed > > service is worthwhile. Also note that the 'source-diff' plan doesn't > > have anything to do with /etc. If you have a beef with Danny's work, > > take it up with him. > > > How can this scheme cause Robert Withrow's AMD/NIS "eval" changes > to /etc/sysconfig and /etc/rc to work on my machine? > > I don't think that case is pathalogical at all, and it's just the > first one off the top of my head. > > > I believe there were mount option changes a while back as well. > > What about the mount utility changes for the 4.4BSD-Lite2 merge? > > > > The scheme _is_ practical. You are being part of the problem; please > > desist 8) > > The soloution is known and long-standing, it's just never been > adopted because of the /var and rc.d changes being "too SysV-like" > (ie: NIH). > > (How can advocating a particular soloution be construed as "being part > of the problem"? It would seem more like "part of the soloution"...) > Are any of you folk actually doing an upgrade from somebody else's "here's how it ought to be" distribution of ANYTHING directly to a machine that you care about? Seems to me it would be crazy to do that :-) My production machines use NIS maps for amd. I don't expect the stock /etc/rc and /etc/sysconfig to handle it. The FreeBSD startup of amd only provides a small subset of the startup possibilities described in the amd documentation. This is just an example. Another exmaple: I don't like the ownership and permissions of directories and files in the standard distribution. I change it on production machines. My call, and not under the jurisdiction of the Permissions Police, eh? I don't expect the standard FreeBSD distribution to fit my needs out of the box, or to have Those in Power change it to fit my needs, I am pleased when it is a reasonable base from which to change. How would anyone alse know what wierd configuration I might want. If I think a change is slick enough to mention, and I am free to suggest it, that's another story. If few or none like it, that's OK, and I can still use it, what's the problem? Is it worth arguing about all of this? -- Mike Murphy mrm@Mole.ORG +1 619 598 5874 Better is the enemy of Good