Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 23:07:18 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> Cc: 'Doug Barton' <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. Message-ID: <20110510030718.GA18435@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <010b01cc0eb5$3c6456e0$b52d04a0$@vicor.com> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <4DC84E68.1000203@FreeBSD.org> <007d01cc0e9d$00301ff0$00905fd0$@vicor.com> <20110509233825.GB2558@DataIX.net> <010b01cc0eb5$3c6456e0$b52d04a0$@vicor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Devin, On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 06:53:43PM -0700, Devin Teske wrote: > Jason, > > > rc.conf or rc.conf.local override. What do you think ? everyone else ? Doug ? > > I talked about this with our lead developers and we think we came up with > something that has real significant potential. > > We suggest that your source the rc.cond.d/*.conf files: > > a. After /etc/rc.conf > b. Before /etc/rc.conf.local > > Half our developers said that it would be nice if /etc/rc.conf.d/product.conf > could override rc.conf(5) and the other half said it would be nice if it was the > other way around. Then we thought about it for a moment, and we realized that if > you sourced them in-between the two files, that you could accommodate both > parties. > > In this setup, we'd have /etc/rc.conf be the initial override file that > overrides /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Then /etc/rc.conf.d/product.conf would override > that. And finally, /etc/rc.conf.local would be end-all-be-all of overrides. > Nothing would be capable of overriding /etc/rc.conf.local (which seems to suit > the name -- "local" should indicate that the "non-local" can be inherited from a > master configuration, perhaps site-wide or pod-specific). > > What do you think? I think it would be the "happy median." > I am somewhat sketchy of putting it between the two. Reason being is I know quite a few people that already place anything that has to do with ports(7) into rc.conf.local just to keep it seperate from the systems rc.conf. I can see that raising a few eyebrows. As of right now its thought of that rc.conf and rc.conf.local get processed consecutively and would have to be explained quite rigorously how they actually fall in order. Only my opinion though, its up for grabs. 1). If its sourced before then it can be considered user pre-defined defaults. 2). If its sourced after then it becomes user defined overrides for anything in rc.conf or rc.conf.local 3). If placed between then I feel it becomes an extension of rc.conf leaving rc.conf.local to be the final say on all configs. This is intentionally what rc.conf.local was meant for anyway. Really I personally do not object to either of the three listed above and can see a point of view from all three sides but if I was forced to vote for one of them I would probably have to go with 3. User feedback for this type of thing is greatly needed & appreciated. -- ( python -c "import this" ) Regards, (jhell) Jason Hellenthal [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyKvlAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+sIcIAJaN/mcB2BY3PtiIhzV1zaeE QPmzKHPoCpVV9Jf/XfEC5N5htnNlDxOtf01DiO0i2NOL59CSTxnOeAdU5Mw521mW bY2uYsclz9Sjcrz1OMUdZ/0fxRXBSwjePsRUbqwlARS4qCXR3Se5jAywPUkFwXYl 9GeIGVXfQD2AJuNcOlWhL6Hx0TBt/4pVHMvKSZbiL3I5q/l13RxoE9kE6OwH0RoG KWmc8tjT1jsNY+S9mWAp03xMgYXRdAUP+RtkpQvVu7AM3i1whFU2yxPWQjDioPzY itF/YC5l2JfGo95M+/1vQ8ReAOxRblgJ0FuxbfnsHG03q+2rLqnOL/KxQUi6e2U= =8tIU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110510030718.GA18435>