From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 2 22:00:56 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F284106571D for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:00:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BD78FC2E for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:00:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roberthuff@rcn.com) Received: from mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.22]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2009 18:00:55 -0400 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.10.5-GA) with ESMTP id PYC58560; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:00:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 209-6-22-188.c3-0.smr-ubr1.sbo-smr.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO jerusalem.litteratus.org.litteratus.org) ([209.6.22.188]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2009 18:00:54 -0400 From: Robert Huff MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18981.41237.246524.796@jerusalem.litteratus.org> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 18:00:53 -0400 To: Ruben van Staveren In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) "fuki" XEmacs Lucid X-Junkmail-Whitelist: YES (by domain whitelist at mr02.lnh.mail.rcn.net) Cc: Doug Barton , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Do you use a value other than AUTO for network_interfaces? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:00:57 -0000 Ruben van Staveren writes: > > Up till Sunday in 8-current, and for a long time in general > > network.subr (part of the rc.d system) has emitted a warning that > > values of network_interfaces other than AUTO are deprecated. I removed > > that warning in HEAD Sunday, and there is no a discussion about > > whether or not it should be put back, and whether or not there is any > > need for the user to specify the list of network interfaces at all. > > Well, I do. > > I only want to configure only the interfaces that are connected and > that I know about. What he said. In my case complicated by the fact the interfaces in question do some wierd-ass initialization (which is legacy from like sometime in 5.x and might be unnecessary ... but it took a long time to get working and isn't broke). Robert Huff