From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr 28 14:13:34 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7F18E37B401; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C857443F93; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id ABDF12A7EA; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:13:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from peter@wemm.org)
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
To: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com>
In-Reply-To: <3EAD83F5.7030302@btc.adaptec.com> 
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:13:31 -0700
From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Message-Id: <20030428211331.ABDF12A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>
cc: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org>
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-rc] Re: RFC: Removal of the old rc system from
	-current 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:13:34 -0000

Scott Long wrote:

> I think that you and others have convinced me that there isn't an
> overwhelming need to deprecate rcOG.

My take on this whole thing is that having two implementations doesn't
encourage a clean break.  Suppose we have two third party vendors.  One
supplies a rcOG hook because they were too lazy to convert it, and put in
their instructions "Be sure to set rcng=NO in /etc/rc.conf".

Then, you get another component from another vendor, who only supplies
a rcNG startup module.  The user now has two conflicting sets of startup
hooks to reconcile and will be forced to get their hands dirty and translate
one of them to the other.

IMHO, make a clean break and get it over and done with.  Get everybody on
the same page.  Making the clean break also means that we will find anything
that has been missed (eg: /etc/netstart as referenced later in this thread)
sooner rather than later.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5