From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Apr 28 14:48:33 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 A574537B401; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 953EB43F3F; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3SLmP46045790;
	Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:48:26 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:13:31 PDT."
             <20030428211331.ABDF12A7EA@canning.wemm.org> 
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:48:25 +0200
Message-ID: <45789.1051566505@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>
cc: Scott Long <scott_long@btc.adaptec.com>
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 21:48:34 -0000

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.