Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 02:56:33 +0100 From: "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@com.bat.ru> To: Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Subject: Re: OPTIONS, LATEST_LINK, and RCng Message-ID: <web-160834@mail.bat.ru> In-Reply-To: <04206E1D-66F6-11D8-8D4C-003065ABFD92@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:19:42 -0500 Charles Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> wrote: >On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:15 AM, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:46:24 +0100 >> Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> wrote: >>> Chuck Swiger wrote: >>>> I that life would be better, or less astonishing :-), if >>>>rcvar >>>> defaulted to "y" for manual invocation and for startup >>>>scripts in >>>> /usr/local/etc/rc.d... >>> >>> I guess I don't really like that. First of all, I'm a >>>big friend of >>> manually >>> activated services, since then I know what is running on >>>my machine. >>> Second >>> it would be difficult to make this consistent, since I >>>might only >>> want to >>> start some of the daemons provided in a port (eg. slapd >>>but not >>> slurpd from >>> OpenLDAP). Most of the `classical' script defaulted to >>>`NO' (or >>> .sample). >>> But maybe I'm too cautious here? >> >> I really don't understand, what this arguing is all >>about :( > >I don't think Oliver and I are arguing, or even >vigorously disagreeing. :-) >I'm willing to live with foo_enable defaulting to NO >under rcNG all of the time-- after all, the patch I >suggested doesn't change that behavior. However, I will >make the argument that foo_enable really ought to default >to YES when the command is run interactively. Failing >that, at the very least rcNG needs to tell the user that >the command they just ran didn't actually do what they >expected, which is what my patch does. > >[ I'd also prefer to see rcNG default to NO for services >shipped with the base system, and YES for services added >by the user via ports-- aka services in >/usr/local/etc/rc.d-- but I can live with the existing >behavior (as I said, sorry for the repetition :-). ] Seems, I've read it in a bit different way. I completelly agree with the last statement :) Notifying user in such cases is "good thing (tm)". Sorry for ranting :) With regards, Timur
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?web-160834>