Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:42:49 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, kevin@insidesystems.net, brooks@freebsd.org, joao@matik.com.br Subject: Re: Desired behaviour of "ifconfig -alias" Message-ID: <20070212144249.GA50299@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <200702121426.l1CEQIF4031564@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200702092300.35420.joao@matik.com.br> <200702121426.l1CEQIF4031564@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 03:26:18PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: > JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> wrote: > > Brooks Davis wrote: > > > Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > > Kevin Way wrote: > > > > > I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that cause= d this > > > > > command to be executed: > > > > >=20 > > > > > ifconfig bce0 -alias > > > > >=20 > > > > > It turns out that this command eliminated the primary IP for the > > > > > device. > > > > >=20 > > .... > > >=20 > > > It's way to late to make this change. This is known behavior and has > > > been for ages. If there's a bug it's in the documentation. > >=20 > > wellwell, we also were apes for ages but does not mean that we stay be= having > > like them and if some still does so it is also never to late to change > > that ;) >=20 > Changing the behaviour of tools always involves a certain > danegr of breaking existing script. That's especially true > for symstem administration commands such as ifconfig that > are running in automated scripts, and people depend on them > for booting their machines remotely. >=20 > I'm not saying that people are intentionally using that > syntax ... Maybe they are, maybe not. But you also should > take into accounts that there might be scripts that use the > syntax inadvertantly and happen to work correctly because > of the current behaviour. >=20 > I'm also _not_ saying that the behaviour must not be changed > at all. But it should be done carefully, i.e. first to > -current, with proper "heads up" warnings. Don't change > it in RELENG_6 without warning and expect evrybody to be > happy. This is the point I attempted to make and failed at earlier. The general policy would be that we could change it to fail in current, but doing more than emitting a warning in STABLE would be risky. -- Brooks --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF0HzpXY6L6fI4GtQRAvlcAKDe+WhHxTsw9vmwKVUBLIwk13NcnwCg5cKX IVjTDFAzYohBqruIqDKSISc= =FkJz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pf9I7BMVVzbSWLtt--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070212144249.GA50299>