Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:44:38 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/rc.d hostname Message-ID: <20070212034438.GA42410@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <20070211085317.GF13808@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <200702101313.l1ADDX8m056868@repoman.freebsd.org> <20070210205228.GE9455@submonkey.net> <20070211085317.GF13808@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:53:17AM +0300, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:52:28PM +0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 01:13:33PM +0000, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> > > yar 2007-02-10 13:13:33 UTC
> > >=20
> > > FreeBSD src repository
> > >=20
> > > Modified files:
> > > etc/rc.d hostname=20
> > > Log:
> > > Handle the case when the admin forgot to set $hostname,
> > > which can happen in new installations: advise to set the
> > > variable and refer to rc.conf(5).
> >=20
> > Isn't it possible for the hostname to come via DHCP? How does this
> > behave in that case (or rather, I can see how it behaves; is that the
> > right thing)?
>=20
> I've never played with setting the hostname via DHCP. In my change,
> I just tried not to break the existing code related to DHCP. Perhaps
> someone using DHCP to get the hostname could shed light on the topic.
This appears mostly harmless for systems that get their hostname via
DHCP. They will get a warning, but it will otherwise work.
-- Brooks
> > > | @@ -58,7 +58,16 @@ hostname_start()
> > > | fi
> > > | fi
> > > | =20
> > > | - /bin/hostname ${hostname}
> > > | + # Have we got a hostname yet?
> > > | + #
> > > | + if [ -z "${hostname}" ]; then
> > > | + warn "\$hostname is not set -- see ${rcvar_manpage}."
> > > | + return
> > > | + fi
> > > | +
> > > | + # All right, it is safe to invoke hostname(1) now.
> > > | + #
> > > | + /bin/hostname "${hostname}"
> > > | echo "Setting hostname: `hostname`."
> >=20
> > Are the backticks necessary here? Why don't we use ${hostname}?
>=20
> Thus we determine what name has actually been set. Our doing so
> reeks of paranoia, of course. :-) Perhaps a better ordering would
> be:
>=20
> echo "Setting hostname: ${hostname}."
> /bin/hostname "${hostname}"
>=20
> So possible error messages will follow the introductory statement,
> which makes more sense. Any objecttions?
>=20
> --=20
> Yar
>=20
--IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFFz+KlXY6L6fI4GtQRAm3IAKCg400PLjfucaTwbVbfo5cN4hUuGQCbBwOA
DME1uPbkxggZXBrSXRaEbhc=
=GLEQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--IJpNTDwzlM2Ie8A6--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070212034438.GA42410>