Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 16:50:57 -0700 From: Gordon Tetlow <gordon@tetlows.org> To: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. Message-ID: <BANLkTin679hJDiAB8bZkaUER2L7bC97x5Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110509190441.GC82456@DataIX.net> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <BANLkTi=hozQBLUC15NsF2rky2OfFW=t_RQ@mail.gmail.com> <01d201cc0e6c$47d4b180$d77e1480$@vicor.com> <BANLkTimqhu215ZdHwx=fHqu33NXj2pYpvw@mail.gmail.com> <20110509190441.GC82456@DataIX.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> 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 <dteske@vicor.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BANLkTin679hJDiAB8bZkaUER2L7bC97x5Q>