From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Oct  2 07:53:09 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA29822
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 07:53:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp20.portal.net.au [202.12.71.120])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA29809
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 2 Oct 1997 07:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.smith.net.au [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA00412;
	Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:19:31 +0930 (CST)
Message-Id: <199710021449.AAA00412@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Interface configuration : call for ideas. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:30:45 MST."
             <17758.875737845@time.cdrom.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:19:30 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > Ah, some input!  I thought you were busy?  If this is the quality of 
> > feedback I get from busy people, we must be alone here... 8(
> 
> I am busy, but I hated to see this get the usual silent treatment. :-)

Yah.  I've had a couple of OOB responses, mostly cautious-approving.

> Also, if you think about it, the system's initial boot is also sort of
> an "event" of sorts - I'm sure you could generalize this to the point
> of absurdity, and it might not even be that bad of an idea.

Whilst it would be nice to take the current sequential bootstrap 
approach and remodel it in a dependancy-based fashion, I could see this 
confusing people a great deal.  The current approach has the 
substantial virtue of simplicity, not to mention historical precedent. 

> > OK here.  I'm not sure how others will buy it.  Perhaps a POC 
> > implementation is called for?  How do people feel about a potentially 
> > new directory in /etc for files associated with this sort of thing?
> 
> POC?

Proof Of Concept.

> > Is there any way in sh of determining the existence of a function?
> 
> I thought you'd just expand the target variable and check it
> for NULL-ness ("").  If it expands, you pass it to eval.  If it
> doesn't, you move on.

I don't want to use variables, as it's unpleasant to stack more than 
one command into a variable.  I was thinking either shell functions or 
discrete files in a subdirectory; the most-default file would implement 
fallback behaviour suited to the ifconfig_xx* variables currently in 
use for compatability's sake.

mike