From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 2 11:16:18 2007 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 75AA716A419; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:16:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gahr@gahr.ch) Received: from cpanel03.rubas-s03.net (cpanel03.rubas-s03.net [195.182.222.73]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6BA313C461; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:16:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gahr@gahr.ch) Received: from 80-218-180-150.dclient.hispeed.ch ([80.218.180.150] helo=gahrtop.localhost) by cpanel03.rubas-s03.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Icfjc-0001Vy-8j; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:16:16 +0200 Message-ID: <47022870.7030607@gahr.ch> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 13:16:00 +0200 From: Pietro Cerutti User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070808) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <200710012040.l91KeC2t097859@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.2 OpenPGP: id=9571F78E; url=http://www.gahr.ch/pgp Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigFDED252132D663577351FCB8" X-Antivirus-Scanner: Clean mail though you should still use an Antivirus X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cpanel03.rubas-s03.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - gahr.ch X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/105568: [patch] Add more flexibility to rc.conf, to choose "_enable" values at startup 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, 02 Oct 2007 11:16:18 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigFDED252132D663577351FCB8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Doug Barton wrote: > What do you feel is the need/benefit of adding this? I read your PR, an= d > I don't find your reasoning very compelling. You can easily start or > stop services after the system enters multi-user mode by simply changin= g > the _enable variable and running /etc/rc.d/foo start|stop as needed. > There are precious few services that depend on being started at boot ti= me. 1) enter multi user mode 2) edit rc.conf 3) /etc/rc.d/foo [start|stop] vs. 1) choose yes or no before entering multi user mode It's just a matter of comfort, cleanness and easy of handling. Here are a few examples which come to my mind right now: A student having a "web technologies" course would start its web server and database daemons only during the course. The same student, during a Linux course would start the kqemu service to load the Qemu kernel module and run a virtualized linux machine. An employee would start a VPN connection to its corporation by enabling vpnc only when working at home. On a laptop, one could start powerd only when he's running on battery or when the environment temperature is high (thus CPU clock speed should be controlled). >=20 > Also, in regards to your section about using this on a laptop, I have > solved the same problem by using an rc.local script that detects the > network I'm on and then runs anything I need with onestart. Admittedly > your solution has the benefit of properly stopping the service at > shutdown time, but I've never found that to be a problem. The discussion about the use on laptops is not only related to the networking facilities. In the few examples I posted above, I clearly assume that the machine on which these decisions are taken is a laptop. I mentioned the use on laptops on the problem report because this is clearly a matter of mobility. Moreover, being it a boot-related patch, it's not supposed to be used in a server with hundreds of days of uptime. >=20 > So can you please elaborate on your reasoning? And do others find this > to be an idea worth pursuing? Finally, I think that the potential benefits of this patch greatly exceed its negative effects (if any..). >=20 > Thanks, Thanks for your feedback! >=20 > Doug >=20 --=20 Pietro Cerutti PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp --------------enigFDED252132D663577351FCB8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHAih3wMJqmJVx944RCtB2AKCAuKLz9o3T82asxvSmRQt2j2WlAgCfTL9j zl2W3mXxhVvmBlryqttnJzo= =Mofa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigFDED252132D663577351FCB8--