From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 28 14:25:38 2003 Return-Path: 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 0AF6837B401; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx.nsu.ru (mx.nsu.ru [212.192.164.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58B043FCB; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:25:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: from mail by mx.nsu.ru with drweb-scanned (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19AG8d-0000qp-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:26:15 +0700 Received: from regency.nsu.ru ([193.124.210.26]) by mx.nsu.ru with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19AG8N-0000kR-00; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:25:59 +0700 Received: from regency.nsu.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by regency.nsu.ru (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3SLO0CT092414; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:24:00 +0700 (NOVST) (envelope-from danfe@regency.nsu.ru) Received: (from danfe@localhost) by regency.nsu.ru (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h3SLO0X2092413; Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:24:00 +0700 (NOVST) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 04:24:00 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Peter Wemm Message-ID: <20030428212400.GC91050@regency.nsu.ru> References: <3EAD83F5.7030302@btc.adaptec.com> <20030428211331.ABDF12A7EA@canning.wemm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030428211331.ABDF12A7EA@canning.wemm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Envelope-To: peter@wemm.org, scott_long@btc.adaptec.com, DougB@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000009, version=0.11.1.4 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-34.0 required=5.0 tests=BOGOFILTER_TEST_PASS,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_MUTT version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) cc: Scott Long cc: Doug Barton 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 21:25:38 -0000 On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 02:13:31PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > 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. I tend to agree: vendors that are too concerned with keeping their software compatible with RELENG_4 could spend a few human/minutes for compatibility with rcOG; others should just go for rnNG as de facto standard. Dropping rcOG for 5.1(2?) seems to help to avoid future problems rather than creating them. Just my $.02. ./danfe