Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Aug 1998 22:16:48 +0000
From:      Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
To:        dima@best.net
Cc:        mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith), dillon@backplane.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, committers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: make.conf 
Message-ID:  <199808282216.WAA00640@word.smith.net.au>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Aug 1998 22:11:39 MST." <199808290511.WAA20198@burka.rdy.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Mike Smith writes:
> > That would imply a minimum of conflict between an automatically 
> > upgraded /etc/rc.conf and your scheme; because you leave /etc/rc.conf 
> > untouched, the upgrade would simply migrate it to the newer version, 
> > but your overrides would be left untouched.
> > 
> > The one difficult case would be where a new addition to /etc/rc.conf 
> > was made which enabled a service which you wanted disabled.
> 
> I don't see a problem here, since rc.conf.local is included at the very end
> of /etc/rc.conf. Or am I missing something?

In the following scenario, it requires an audit as Matt mentioned:

 - You perform an operating system upgrade, which updates /etc/rc.conf
 - The upgrade adds a new service to the standard system startup
 - The update of /etc/rc.conf enables this new service
 - You do not want this new service enabled

Because the existing rc.conf.local doesn't know about the new service, 
it won't contain an override to turn it off.

This case is likely to be so rare that while it's worth bearing in 
mind, I can't see it as something to preclude using an automated update 
tool.


-- 
\\  Sometimes you're ahead,       \\  Mike Smith
\\  sometimes you're behind.      \\  mike@smith.net.au
\\  The race is long, and in the  \\  msmith@freebsd.org
\\  end it's only with yourself.  \\  msmith@cdrom.com





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199808282216.WAA00640>