Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 20:55:54 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordon@tetlows.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. Message-ID: <20110511005554.GB67882@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinmyTzzVXjYZCbYCKv_=nEgoHPtGA@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <4DC84E68.1000203@FreeBSD.org> <007d01cc0e9d$00301ff0$00905fd0$@vicor.com> <20110509233825.GB2558@DataIX.net> <010b01cc0eb5$3c6456e0$b52d04a0$@vicor.com> <20110510030718.GA18435@DataIX.net> <FAE3414F-7FBD-4524-9076-4E1DA330117C@vicor.com> <20110510051513.GC18435@DataIX.net> <BANLkTinmyTzzVXjYZCbYCKv_=nEgoHPtGA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--CdrF4e02JqNVZeln Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gordon, On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 05:30:09PM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> wrot= e: > > Not to break existing behavior the way they stand: > > [...] > > /etc/defaults/rc.conf > > /etc/rc.conf.d/CUSTOM.conf > > /etc/rc.conf > > /etc/rc.conf.local > > /etc/rc.conf.d/NAME >=20 > Having 2 files (well any number of *.conf files actually) sourced from > the same directory at different times based solely on name is a bad > idea. There isn't enough documentation that will adequately explain > how that is supposed to work. I would consider it a major POLA > violation. >=20 I agree with that and sort of disagree. As stated before the behavior of=20 /etc/rc.conf.d/NAME leaves alot to be said and is quite a neusance to work= =20 with and would seriously be hard to document how to use in any effecient=20 way. So with that said I believe that the above example would work just=20 fine while the other /etc/rc.conf.d/NAME method just be scratched from=20 documentation and left for deprecation. Thinking more about this I would really like to here from some doc=20 comitters for the handbook and see we can get them to take a look at the=20 current state of rc.conf.d to get a real feel on how that would have to=20 look in an end result and how the new way would look. I think this would=20 give this a shining light on exactly how complex one is compared to the=20 other. Any reccomendations ? who we could contact ? > Also, if your stated goal was to allow ports to install sample or > sensible defaults into /etc/rc.conf.d, it needs to live in > /usr/local/etc instead of /etc. Ports writing data into /etc shouldn't > happen. >=20 For now this is just about /etc/rc.conf.d ports are in mind but that is=20 obviously one side of it. I would never suggest that ports install anyting= =20 into /etc. --=20 Regards, (jhell) Jason Hellenthal --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyd6ZAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+S4QIAI6fbXHa799XdeeRXjFjf1Oe UTq+Kw7w/gF1J4gufNuYqC965Ml03vXI9GfHVRvUB6Qq67ZOdh2NifBkvOmv6OW0 T3gP5HxY5Hh0oV1xXckMzkGeOmze2HZe3T1HjBjGD2hRyY3EsATE+RQpAK47mTe0 7p9va0ISGji442AL680KdcD7BojxFv9zAmGChRq3OVwWXVYJmOz5lj9iOgnHK0eu K51RYIOFpSv0ypLlBzkW3sd0fUM4WhTtcxdIPFBIo9IZjaAcCfHhaxRXqQN4mE1w IZRHUnBznJ7WxwF2vXNGwlZ8Fq0TEFvUc3J/7AXH4WxcQP3frpu83Y/397PMXdY= =Xwsk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --CdrF4e02JqNVZeln--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110511005554.GB67882>