From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 25 00:12:03 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 76B3F106566C; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:12:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [69.12.149.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2B88FC1F; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:12:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from trouble.errno.com (trouble.errno.com [10.0.0.248]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.13.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m2P0C29W042582 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:12:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <47E84352.1010506@errno.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:12:02 -0700 From: Sam Leffler User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071125) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <47E809EE.4080809@errno.com> <47E81D12.5090201@FreeBSD.org> <47E81DD1.8050205@errno.com> <47E820D7.1060804@FreeBSD.org> <47E82201.3000502@errno.com> <47E83055.9070809@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <47E83055.9070809@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-Misty-Metrics: ebb.errno.com; whitelist 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: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:12:03 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > 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. I have _already_ demonstrated a need--the way things currently are ANY privsep/chroot application started prior to syslogd will NEVER log any messages. I noticed this because of dhclient (and wpa_supplicant which very shortly will be logging msgs to syslog) but I expect there are other services if you look and I wouldn't be the least surprised if more get added (does named work?). I didn't expect a fix to be simple; if it were I'd have just done it myself. Saying "fix it your self and send us a patch" is worse than lame. Sam