From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 10 00:21:52 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 8E0D7106564A for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 00:21:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhellenthal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gw0-f54.google.com (mail-gw0-f54.google.com [74.125.83.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 354D18FC0C for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 00:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwb15 with SMTP id 15so2487418gwb.13 for ; Mon, 09 May 2011 17:21:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:x-openpgp-key-id:x-openpgp-key-fingerprint :x-openpgp-key-url; bh=dy1ZIx9nHTob9fE7iMZLhDtqvoCIxXYXocSXEGPtKWw=; b=WU4zeWKnc5phoz4LFKVa7iK8oYFLFNdQWfTDYkeR8QbMB63iNyxSlucs7KTw6E6qlY Apvk0eRSzvk1YR2jGzHyfnmj36lo/Ow4XL9mzvja4QM3RslibJ6xCrJXxvXwTWxTSYT0 KViUwTcxSQFz6dc0RKxagsHGK+3sfYpDHjjig= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-openpgp-key-id :x-openpgp-key-fingerprint:x-openpgp-key-url; b=Op4blHF76NMbmkT1dXUWlLaOXrDvZWP4mSlAbd/fDDQwlZT9LjQcO4va7hxbje8e6K uoSWYGVyrSnCzlIOkB1z1VZFGcLC2+MtyBFBaT7K+0njtuezxoWkBSzUvkQVa39G6qtS r27LMyPQbp3zTuA5RXznUbUDPvZsEQB1djJZg= Received: by 10.236.19.100 with SMTP id m64mr8968753yhm.77.1304986911252; Mon, 09 May 2011 17:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DataIX.net ([99.190.84.116]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e8sm1097961yhm.43.2011.05.09.17.21.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 09 May 2011 17:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: "J. Hellenthal" Received: from DataIX.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by DataIX.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4A0LjM6006407 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 May 2011 20:21:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhell@DataIX.net) Received: (from jhell@localhost) by DataIX.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p4A0Ljd6006406; Mon, 9 May 2011 20:21:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhell@DataIX.net) Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:21:45 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal To: Gordon Tetlow Message-ID: <20110510002145.GD2558@DataIX.net> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <01d201cc0e6c$47d4b180$d77e1480$@vicor.com> <20110509190441.GC82456@DataIX.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qGV0fN9tzfkG3CxV" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-OpenPGP-Key-Id: 0x89D8547E X-OpenPGP-Key-Fingerprint: 85EF E26B 07BB 3777 76BE B12A 9057 8789 89D8 547E X-OpenPGP-Key-URL: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E 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: Tue, 10 May 2011 00:21:52 -0000 --qGV0fN9tzfkG3CxV Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gordon, On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 04:50:57PM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jason Hellenthal wrot= e: > > > > 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 twist= ed > >> > 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 configurat= ion 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 ne= eds > > 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. >=20 > The {name} implementation isn't broken, it just doesn't do what you want = it to. >=20 > 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. >=20 Though I would like to I agree with that. You dint just introduce an=20 interface and remove it later down the road with a long winded deprecation= =20 process. This certainly could be the start of that deprecation process. "It just doesn't do what it is suggested to do" not what I want it to do=20 by rc.conf(5) which is part of the reason why this patch came into play.=20 You can't just provide a space to use and then suggest to the user that=20 they only use certain undocumented names that are provided by rc.d/*=20 scripts. It's a waste of their time thinking that they can just put for=20 instance 'jail, jail1, jail2' in rc.conf.d and it'll work. It does not=20 unless you start adding source this and that lines to the end of every=20 file and that would not be right to suggest to the end-user either. Though if it is documented well enough I do not see any fathomable reason= =20 why a user should not be allowed to make up a name that contains what they= =20 want to be in it. The rc.conf.d directory suggests its very use just as=20 anyone would believe about usr/local/etc/apache22/Includes/*.conf. Out of all the opposition yet I still have not seen a valid response of=20 "what is wrong with letting the user decide how they name a configuration= =20 file?". I keep seeing the opposite of well you can do this and you can do= =20 that with shell scripting options. That shocks me as this is like stated=20 before a user specified created and maintained directory. --=20 Regards, (jhell) Jason Hellenthal --qGV0fN9tzfkG3CxV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyIUYAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+t/sH/igSxUPV66powmaOT8XRtGa9 ZbOmz+eQwy5vr2+eGs3bhs4GmXdcKErcHG5Jvj7cLtI5F28VVtimKE9yiNO+3bKM 5I1LA6uF7TiU3tpZ8WuKgNZBCam3YU/DC4lFKdvwnmLYGIJzYWRU7ofljj7jB1ck mOUzXUyOndEJ88hUyDTsroay+mnap8RwSPqVTBWoxakNMCdMTPI1TyR1EKv75QtF 7nb9SmH/veEeFMJ5MiDT5qWJUQLPNObm1/5v5cpnOSOjfH4k/9e20PjD2U5jSku1 pmDCUoWbG8gsVzkIKB+k+wl4TuinZXYYMSp7YheP7V466IOSdUj38yLSqT14TUo= =0dti -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qGV0fN9tzfkG3CxV--