From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 6 21:58:45 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2E916B95C for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:47:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alex@foxybanana.com) Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net (rwcrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.192.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F36743D55 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:47:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from alex@foxybanana.com) Received: from laptop.mine.box (unknown[68.36.46.193]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20060606214747m1300jhq8ge>; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 21:47:48 +0000 Received: from Laptop.mine.box (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Laptop.mine.box (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k56LlXvn059773; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:47:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from alex@Laptop.mine.box) Received: (from alex@localhost) by Laptop.mine.box (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k56LlW3i059772; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 17:47:32 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from alex) From: Alexander Botero-Lowry Message-Id: <200606062147.k56LlW3i059772@Laptop.mine.box> Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:47:31 -0400 To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, brooks@one-eyed-alien.net References: <20060606205325.GA13570@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20060606205325.GA13570@odin.ac.hmc.edu> User-Agent: nail 11.25 7/29/05 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: The future of set_rcvar X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:58:47 -0000 One question I've always had is why FreeBSD picked to have ${name}_enable instead of just ${name} like on NetBSD? Was there a lot of debate about this, was it to make the variables less ambigious, or osmething else? I would advocate for the third option if there is really a good reason to not just do what NetBSD does. It makes it hard for packagers to use consistent rc scripts between NetBSD and FreeBSD when the $rcvar is different between the two platforms (and with a lot of stuff in ports and pkgsrc the same rc scripts could be used and even packaged with the application if upstream likes that idea). Alex Brooks Davis wrote: > We need to decide what we're doing with set_rcvar. Doug has been > advocating against it in a number of forums, but no move has been made > to actually deprecate it that I've seen. I believe we need to speak > with one voice on this issue and have one style that is both documented > for ports and used in the base. I can see three main options: > > - Use set_rcvar unless there is a good reason not to (generally the very > few historical scripts). This is the default in the base and was the > status quo in ports for a while. > - Always manually set $rcvar, deprecating set_rcvar with a loud warning > and removing in in 7 or 8. > - The same as above, but default $rcvar to ${name}_enable requiring that > scripts that don't use have an rcvar value explicitly unset it. > > I slightly prefer the first or third option because I don't like the > idea of the default style encouraging inconsistent naming which I > believe forcing rcvar to be set manually by default does. My only > strong opinion on the subject is that we must make up out minds and act > consistently instead of continuing the current split between ports > documentation and the base. > > -- Brooks > > -- > Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. > PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4