From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 9 23:50:58 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674FB106566C for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 23:50:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gordon@tetlows.org) Received: from mail-pv0-f182.google.com (mail-pv0-f182.google.com [74.125.83.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48AD78FC08 for ; Mon, 9 May 2011 23:50:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pvg11 with SMTP id 11so3397804pvg.13 for ; Mon, 09 May 2011 16:50:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.44.200 with SMTP id g8mr11040581pbm.362.1304985057560; Mon, 09 May 2011 16:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.58.3 with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:50:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110509190441.GC82456@DataIX.net> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <01d201cc0e6c$47d4b180$d77e1480$@vicor.com> <20110509190441.GC82456@DataIX.net> Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:50:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: Gordon Tetlow To: Jason Hellenthal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list 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: Mon, 09 May 2011 23:50:58 -0000 On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrote: > > Gordon, > > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:32:18AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Devin Teske wrote: >> > The solution is to have a script that can tell you these two details: >> > >> > 1. What is the final value of ``*_enable'' >> > 2. Which file assigns said final value >> > >> > If you have those two pieces of information, then unraveling a twisted >> > configuration is easier. >> > >> > [Re-]welcome my sysrc(8) script: >> >> While this is a very cool script, I have to wonder how far we have >> strayed if we require another tool to tell us how the system is >> configured. Surely we should be aiming for simplicity in our >> implementation and not something incredibly complex. >> >> After Jason's proposal, we would have the following list of configuration files: >> >> /etc/defaults/rc.conf >> /etc/rc.conf >> /etc/rc.conf.local > > What seems to be lost here is that the below two are "optional" not > something that should be created by anything other than the user who needs > that functionality. Yes having two of the below is a problem. Yes {name} > needs to go. But until there is something to replace it in a way that is > agreed on we cant get rid of the broken {name} implement. The {name} implementation isn't broken, it just doesn't do what you want it to. I would be hesitant to remove the {name} implementation, it's been there since the 5.x days. It's hard to say how many installations rely on it being there. Gordon