Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 09:48:37 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Chris Rees <crees@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Maxim Ignatenko <gelraen.ua@gmail.com>, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/163508: [rc.subr] [patch] Add " enable" and " disable" commands to rc.subr Message-ID: <74F7E2CE-89DC-4F64-9A50-71B9FD458025@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-SK%2Bo0b9GysjhH0N=TxsZXLRAuKL-n%2Btt6%2BCcr1gAJWQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201112241230.pBOCUF3h064098@freefall.freebsd.org> <CADLo83-SK%2Bo0b9GysjhH0N=TxsZXLRAuKL-n%2Btt6%2BCcr1gAJWQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 24, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > On 24 December 2011 12:30, Maxim Ignatenko <gelraen.ua@gmail.com> wrote: >> The following reply was made to PR conf/163508; it has been noted by GNATS. >> >> From: Maxim Ignatenko <gelraen.ua@gmail.com> >> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> >> Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: conf/163508: [rc.subr] [patch] Add "enable" and >> "disable" commands to rc.subr >> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 14:20:19 +0200 >> >> On 24 December 2011 04:15, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > This idea has been considered before and rejected because it's too >> > difficult to catch all the corner cases, and actually editing a config >> > file is not really all that hard of a thing to do. >> > >> >> The idea was to make enabling/disabling services less error-prone. It >> don't need to catch _all_ corner cases, because if administrator do >> something unusual with startup configuration he should be able to >> manipulate it in proper way, or even have tools that do something >> similar. >> Proposed patch handles /etc/rc.conf, /etc/rc.conf.local and >> /etc/rc.conf.d/* properly (I hope), so it should fit nicely in 95% of >> cases. >> Doing `service someserive enable` is much faster and less error-prone >> that `service someservice rcvar ; echo someservicercvar_enable=YES >> >> /etc/rc.conf` > > Disagree, sorry. > > If we're going to implement these ideas we should do it properly, not > for 95% of cases. A lot depends on what those 5% of the cases are. Absent an implementation to throw stones at, such criticism is premature. If the 5% of cases are when someone has done something complicated to the rc.conf file, then I don't care: they won't use this interface and we can detect this case and do nothing. If the 5% of the cases are when someone has enabled ntpd, then that would be a non-starter. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?74F7E2CE-89DC-4F64-9A50-71B9FD458025>