Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:24:36 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, emax@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r238622 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <501F7134.9020200@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120803.125803.269418223701686293.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20120803.055554.1380323232583218022.hrs@allbsd.org> <CAFPOs6rHmMPca7Xzhng82b17RPZObCCP64x%2BHPEBvf7%2BwK3pnQ@mail.gmail.com> <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org> <20120803.125803.269418223701686293.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 08/02/2012 20:58, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote in
> <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org>:
>
> do> On 8/2/2012 2:25 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: do> > On Thu, Aug
> 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: do> > do>
> >> Just curious, why ip6addrctl_enable=NO is not enough here? do>
> do> Because the behavior of the script for =NO is to prefer v4.
>
> No, when ip6addrctl_enable=NO the rc.d/ip6addtctl script will be
> simply ignored. No rule will be installed in that case.
I wondered about that, but the script has an explicit case for it.
> do> >> I would do> >> like to eliminate yes/no/none keywords in
> $ip6addrctl_policy because do> >> such keywords are vague. If we
> need the empty rule for some reason, do> >> "empty" would be a
> better name for the policy, I think. do> do> Personally I think
> that the established meanings of "yes" and "no" are do> well
> understood, but I wouldn't object to emitting a warning for them
> to do> help the user make a more explicit selection.
>
> I do not think ip6addrctl_policy={yes|no} is meaningful.
Aside from my argument that the script is poorly named, and the whole
interface is badly designed ... I think users who would say "yes" here
would expect that IPv6 would be preferred, and "no" to mean it would
not be. That is in fact what happens now, so in that sense at least
things seem to be meaningful. :)
> do> While we're at it, the way that the current script replicates
> the test do> for checkyesno in case is bogus, and should be
> changed. I had fixed this do> in the change set that you(hrs)
> backed out. To stick with the structure do> of the current script,
> something like this would work: do> do>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/ip6addrctl.diff do> do> That also
> brings in the warning described above.
>
> I think additional warnings are not needed because a warning will
> be displayed when ipv6_prefer={yes|no} is defined. I have no
> objection to use checkyesno() itself to check if the variable is
> defined as yes or no.
There is a warning in the script already, I just made it consistent;
and you were the one who suggested warnings for yes/no. But as you
know I'm prohibited from making changes to that code, so you have my
patch, do with it as you will.
Doug
- --
I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do
something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
I can do.
-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQH3E0AAoJEFzGhvEaGryENTMH/R6HW7J8+2BLJEwor+VyFWUH
da9d+wrp7GSmBjY2dFko+6Z8A3McIqZDTJ9TdTKerilOMBpZkhT86ZUk1eOldBPp
rMKmMcZlK5Z/8s6l1qGGAFbfX7MFq+qQU6d8xo730o5ldRmBQhhmgH0pAZOLF2Iv
4HI1njrJ56KUnDERh0LhrJ+A5n62JyO1ML/YgGFeU5qvDevomDygmrU+zWhTftLJ
0ACW1YVyK5d8Sg5J44s66nbjMeNk1PXpdVN0CA/n03bryoI39S7kLl1iVInQ99MA
afK8UMV8TTbYd7KOlY091NaBny0K2U7LTY7iprMQ2cHE9DaXHewu3X4FFW9eXoY=
=UNRQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?501F7134.9020200>