Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 08 Jan 2012 08:12:16 +0900 (JST)
From:      Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org>
To:        dougb@FreeBSD.org
Cc:        freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, pjd@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Making use of set_rcvar.
Message-ID:  <20120108.081216.1547061187942402256.hrs@allbsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F08C95F.6040808@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4F079A76.3030306@FreeBSD.org> <20120107112538.GC1696@garage.freebsd.pl> <4F08C95F.6040808@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Sun_Jan__8_08_12_16_2012_123)--
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote
  in <4F08C95F.6040808@FreeBSD.org>:

do> On 01/07/2012 03:25, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
do> > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 05:05:58PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
do> >> On 01/06/2012 06:13, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
do> >>> Any objections?
do> >>>
do> >>> 	http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/set_rcvar.patch
do> >>>
do> >>> This patch only changes scripts where set_rcvar can be used with no
do> >>> arguments.
do> >>
do> >> Please don't do this.
do> >>
do> >> Jilles already pointed out the important reason, it adds pointless
do> >> forks. I suggested a long time ago that we remove set_rcvar altogether
do> >> but I got a lot of resistance to it, and never pursued it. Perhaps it's
do> >> time to revisit that.
do> >
do> > It is a total mess now then and it is definiately not intuitive when
do> > there are much more bad examples than good ones:
do>
do> I agree, which is why I previously proposed assigning them all directly
do> when possible (which is in almost all cases). If no one speaks up
do> opposing this idea in the next few days I'm still prepared to proceed.

 I am always wondering if defining $rcvar as "${name}_enable" at the
 end of load_rc_config() when $rcvar is undefined is bad idea.

 Is there any problem with removing rcvar=... in individual rc.d
 scripts except for non-standard ones (empty or different from
 ${name}_enable)?  It looks simpler than writing the same line
 "rcvar=${name}_enable" many times in various places.

-- Hiroki

----Security_Multipart(Sun_Jan__8_08_12_16_2012_123)--
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)

iEYEABECAAYFAk8I0VAACgkQTyzT2CeTzy2YggCdGmUN56/wPERmgYOs+pA+UdV7
dFoAoM7SxvTzBe7QsN8SuHXXA/RlmkGK
=LirW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

----Security_Multipart(Sun_Jan__8_08_12_16_2012_123)----



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120108.081216.1547061187942402256.hrs>