Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:58:03 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, emax@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r238622 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <20120803.125803.269418223701686293.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120803.055554.1380323232583218022.hrs@allbsd.org> <CAFPOs6rHmMPca7Xzhng82b17RPZObCCP64x%2BHPEBvf7%2BwK3pnQ@mail.gmail.com> <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Fri_Aug__3_12_58_03_2012_662)--
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote
in <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org>:
do> On 8/2/2012 2:25 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
do> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote:
do> >
do> >> Just curious, why ip6addrctl_enable=NO is not enough here?
do>
do> Because the behavior of the script for =NO is to prefer v4.
No, when ip6addrctl_enable=NO the rc.d/ip6addtctl script will be
simply ignored. No rule will be installed in that case.
do> >> I would
do> >> like to eliminate yes/no/none keywords in $ip6addrctl_policy because
do> >> such keywords are vague. If we need the empty rule for some reason,
do> >> "empty" would be a better name for the policy, I think.
do>
do> Personally I think that the established meanings of "yes" and "no" are
do> well understood, but I wouldn't object to emitting a warning for them to
do> help the user make a more explicit selection.
I do not think ip6addrctl_policy={yes|no} is meaningful.
do> While we're at it, the way that the current script replicates the test
do> for checkyesno in case is bogus, and should be changed. I had fixed this
do> in the change set that you(hrs) backed out. To stick with the structure
do> of the current script, something like this would work:
do>
do> http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/ip6addrctl.diff
do>
do> That also brings in the warning described above.
I think additional warnings are not needed because a warning will be
displayed when ipv6_prefer={yes|no} is defined. I have no objection
to use checkyesno() itself to check if the variable is defined as yes
or no.
-- Hiroki
----Security_Multipart(Fri_Aug__3_12_58_03_2012_662)--
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)
iEYEABECAAYFAlAbTEsACgkQTyzT2CeTzy1dsgCgv3QnhZMm6Wn3ZbcVDDGVRPWs
AMUAoKnqO4kG75kVYYfI+ZKQj+aV7xfK
=YbaB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----Security_Multipart(Fri_Aug__3_12_58_03_2012_662)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120803.125803.269418223701686293.hrs>