From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 18 20:50:29 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733E2106564A; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:50:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64E4914E54D; Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:50:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EC6C50F.30405@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:50:23 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111110 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eygene Ryabinkin References: <4EB6693F.2020102@delphij.net> <4EB71580.20507@FreeBSD.org> <4EB72290.8030104@delphij.net> <4EC6C247.6040807@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG, d@delphij.net Subject: Re: Annoying ERROR: 'wlan0' is not a DHCP-enabled interface 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: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 20:50:29 -0000 On 11/18/2011 12:45, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > Xin, good day. > > Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 12:38:31PM -0800, Xin LI wrote: >> Is there any counter reasoning about "having an interface marked as >> non-DHCP is not an error"? I'm still not convinced with the benefit >> of having it show an error message. > > Well, when I invoke 'service dhclient start em0' and em0 isn't > DHCP-enabled, I want to see some diagnostics on why I was not able to > get DHCP on that interface. Return code isn't that visible (I can, of > course, always run it as 'service dhclient start em0 || echo failed'), > but I am not up to typing more than needed and I should see the real > reason for absence of DHCP-assigned address in that case, be it the > non-DHCP-enabled interface or some other problem. Right, that's my argument as well. If there is a particular code path that leads to attempting dhclient on a non-dhcp interface I'd rather see that code path fixed than to suppress the warning. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/