Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 23:07:18 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> Cc: 'Doug Barton' <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. Message-ID: <20110510030718.GA18435@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <010b01cc0eb5$3c6456e0$b52d04a0$@vicor.com> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <4DC84E68.1000203@FreeBSD.org> <007d01cc0e9d$00301ff0$00905fd0$@vicor.com> <20110509233825.GB2558@DataIX.net> <010b01cc0eb5$3c6456e0$b52d04a0$@vicor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Devin, On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 06:53:43PM -0700, Devin Teske wrote: > Jason, >=20 > > rc.conf or rc.conf.local override. What do you think ? everyone else ? = Doug ? >=20 > I talked about this with our lead developers and we think we came up with > something that has real significant potential. >=20 > We suggest that your source the rc.cond.d/*.conf files: >=20 > a. After /etc/rc.conf > b. Before /etc/rc.conf.local >=20 > Half our developers said that it would be nice if /etc/rc.conf.d/product.= conf > could override rc.conf(5) and the other half said it would be nice if it = was the > other way around. Then we thought about it for a moment, and we realized = that if > you sourced them in-between the two files, that you could accommodate both > parties. >=20 > In this setup, we'd have /etc/rc.conf be the initial override file that > overrides /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Then /etc/rc.conf.d/product.conf would o= verride > that. And finally, /etc/rc.conf.local would be end-all-be-all of override= s. > Nothing would be capable of overriding /etc/rc.conf.local (which seems to= suit > the name -- "local" should indicate that the "non-local" can be inherited= from a > master configuration, perhaps site-wide or pod-specific). >=20 > What do you think? I think it would be the "happy median." >=20 I am somewhat sketchy of putting it between the two. Reason being is I=20 know quite a few people that already place anything that has to do with=20 ports(7) into rc.conf.local just to keep it seperate from the systems=20 rc.conf. I can see that raising a few eyebrows. As of right now its thought of that= =20 rc.conf and rc.conf.local get processed consecutively and would have to be= =20 explained quite rigorously how they actually fall in order. Only my=20 opinion though, its up for grabs. 1). If its sourced before then it can be considered user pre-defined=20 defaults.=20 2). If its sourced after then it becomes user defined overrides for=20 anything in rc.conf or rc.conf.local=20 3). If placed between then I feel it becomes an extension of rc.conf=20 leaving rc.conf.local to be the final say on all configs. This is=20 intentionally what rc.conf.local was meant for anyway. Really I personally do not object to either of the three listed above and= =20 can see a point of view from all three sides but if I was forced to vote=20 for one of them I would probably have to go with 3. User feedback for this= =20 type of thing is greatly needed & appreciated. --=20 ( python -c "import this" )=20 Regards, (jhell) Jason Hellenthal --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyKvlAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+sIcIAJaN/mcB2BY3PtiIhzV1zaeE QPmzKHPoCpVV9Jf/XfEC5N5htnNlDxOtf01DiO0i2NOL59CSTxnOeAdU5Mw521mW bY2uYsclz9Sjcrz1OMUdZ/0fxRXBSwjePsRUbqwlARS4qCXR3Se5jAywPUkFwXYl 9GeIGVXfQD2AJuNcOlWhL6Hx0TBt/4pVHMvKSZbiL3I5q/l13RxoE9kE6OwH0RoG KWmc8tjT1jsNY+S9mWAp03xMgYXRdAUP+RtkpQvVu7AM3i1whFU2yxPWQjDioPzY itF/YC5l2JfGo95M+/1vQ8ReAOxRblgJ0FuxbfnsHG03q+2rLqnOL/KxQUi6e2U= =8tIU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --BXVAT5kNtrzKuDFl--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110510030718.GA18435>