Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:48:25 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-rc] Re: RFC: Removal of the old rc system from -current Message-ID: <45789.1051566505@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:13:31 PDT." <20030428211331.ABDF12A7EA@canning.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20030428211331.ABDF12A7EA@canning.wemm.org>, Peter Wemm writes: >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. This is exactly some people think that protocols and specifications should not offer options unless they are non-exclusive and support for them is mandatory. >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. Agreed. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45789.1051566505>