From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 24 22:51:08 2008 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 20E1A106566C for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:51:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx23.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DFA78FC22 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:51:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 16750 invoked by uid 399); 24 Mar 2008 22:56:56 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.5?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2008 22:56:56 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <47E83055.9070809@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:51:01 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Windows/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Leffler References: <47E809EE.4080809@errno.com> <47E81D12.5090201@FreeBSD.org> <47E81DD1.8050205@errno.com> <47E820D7.1060804@FreeBSD.org> <47E82201.3000502@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <47E82201.3000502@errno.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: boot ordering and syslogd 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, 24 Mar 2008 22:51:08 -0000 Sam Leffler wrote: > But saying "it's not a problem that needs to be > fixed" is utterly lame. Since that's not what I intended to convey let me be less concise. 1. Changes to the current rc order need to have a very solid and well thought out rationale which includes a detailed cost/benefit analysis since historically it's been difficult to anticipate all of the potential fallout from a change, and we don't want to violate POLA. 2. You are stating a problem case whose cost does not sound compelling to me, both because I personally don't think "fixing" it would provide much value, and because it would cause a significant change in the current order which inevitably brings a great deal of cost (whether those costs can eventually be ameliorated or not). 3. The burden is on the one requesting a change to demonstrate its benefit. Saying "it's a problem and needs to be fixed" (not accompanied by patches) could also be considered "lame." :) 4. My analysis of the potential costs and benefits might well be wrong, which is why I'd like some other people to weigh in. To summarize, I am not saying I don't think it's a problem. I'm saying that we need more discussion to determine what the problem actually is, what solutions are available, and at what cost. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection