From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 3 03:59:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A999106566C; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 03:59:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.allbsd.org (gatekeeper.allbsd.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e001::32]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2098FC0C; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 03:59:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alph.allbsd.org (p2214-ipbf2707funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [123.225.119.214]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q733wqif045378 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:59:06 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by alph.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q733wpxw071280; Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:58:52 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:58:03 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20120803.125803.269418223701686293.hrs@allbsd.org> To: dougb@FreeBSD.org From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120803.055554.1380323232583218022.hrs@allbsd.org> <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org> X-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Fri_Aug__3_12_58_03_2012_662)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.4 at gatekeeper.allbsd.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mail.allbsd.org [133.31.130.32]); Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:59:07 +0900 (JST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.8 required=13.0 tests=CONTENT_TYPE_PRESENT, ONLY1HOPDIRECT, RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL, SAMEHELOBY2HOP, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on gatekeeper.allbsd.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 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 03:59:17 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Fri_Aug__3_12_58_03_2012_662)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Doug Barton 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 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)----