From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 5 19:10:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C88916A40E for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:10:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [69.147.83.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0073F13C494 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:10:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l15JAP03063545 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:10:25 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id l15JAPd5063541; Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:10:25 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:10:25 GMT Message-Id: <200702051910.l15JAPd5063541@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org From: Brooks Davis Cc: Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Brooks Davis 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: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:10:27 -0000 The following reply was made to PR conf/104884; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Brooks Davis To: Florent Thoumie Cc: Doug Barton , Brooks Davis , Norikatsu Shigemura , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:02:21 -0600 On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:46:51PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > > Florent Thoumie wrote: > >> Brooks Davis wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 04:14:50PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >>>> Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:10:18 GMT > >>>>> FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org wrote: > >>>>>> Thank you very much for your problem report. > >>>>>> It has the internal identification `conf/104884'. > >>>>>> The individual assigned to look at your > >>>>>> report is: freebsd-bugs. You can access the state of your problem > >>>>>> report at any time > >>>>>> via this link: > >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=104884 > >>>>>>> Category: conf > >>>>>>> Responsible: freebsd-bugs > >>>>>>> Synopsis: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf > >>>>>>> Arrival-Date: Sat Oct 28 16:10:18 GMT 2006 > >>>>> I chased HEAD. Please see following patch. > >>>>> Anyone, please handle this PR? > >>>>> And I'll make a patch for 6-stable. > >>>>> > >>>> I've made my comments on this. Maybe someone else should review it? > >>> It seems basicly fine and should be useful. (At least until someone > >>> finally shoots the netgraph part of ng_fec in the head.) I'd like to > >>> see "" be the offical way to not configure any fec interfaces. gif_up's > >>> use of NO is a mistake (IMO). It would be OK to allow "NO" as an > >>> undocumented synanim for "". > >> > >> Agreed, as said in my previous post. > >> > >> I think we could just set gif_interfaces and fec_interfaces to "" in > >> -CURRENT and add the "NO" compatibility in RELENG_6 when MFC time comes? > >> That would be a candidate for 7.0 RELNOTES. > >> > >> Does it make any sense to you? > > > > My instinct is to have it the other way around, with "NO" being the > > default, and "" being a synonym. We've trained people that "NO" is the > > way to turn things off with rc, and the one glaring exception to that > > rule (sendmail) has caused an enormous amount of confusion over the years. > > > > Other than that, I have no objections here. > > IMHO, it makes sense to have "NO" as opposed to "YES". In this case, > it's a list. So an empty list would be "", but keeping > "NO"-compatibility for the -STABLE branch ensures POLA. At least that's > how I see it. I agree. It's a list not a Boolean. There's no reason to poison its name space this way. Also, gif_interfaces is the only *_interfaces variable that takes "NO" as a special argument. The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening. I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable. -- Brooks