Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:54:01 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Bob K <melange@yip.org> Cc: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up! /etc/rc.conf.site is dead. Message-ID: <199902092254.OAA61490@apollo.backplane.com> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990209174752.848o-100000@pi.yip.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> Now we have /etc/defaults/rc.conf, /etc/rc.conf, and /etc/rc.conf.local.
:> Considerably less simple and quite unobvious.
:
:Erm... I thought that the point of /etc/defaults/rc.conf was that one
:wouldn't touch it, and only work with rc.conf?
:
:(Haven't looked at the change myself, as my test machine is dead at the
:moment)
:
:melange@yip.org - Shave A Tree Today! (TM)
Yah... kinda like nobody is supposed to touch /etc/rc, eh?
/etc/rc - no touchee
/etc/rc.conf - no touchee
/etc/rc.local - touchees
/etc/rc.conf.local - touchees
That seems pretty obvious to me.
I'm still partial to my /etc/rc.conf.N idea, where /etc/rc.conf.0
is a no-touchee and /etc/rc.conf.9 is the 'user can do whatever he wants
with this file' touchee. The site configurator would mess with
/etc/rc.conf.2. A post-install gui configurator would mess with
either /etc/rc.conf.2 or /etc/rc.conf.3.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902092254.OAA61490>