Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 01:20:21 GMT From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Message-ID: <200702090120.l191KLsb029058@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR conf/104884; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:17:24 -0600 On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:18:17AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > > Brooks Davis wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >>> Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >>>>> Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > >>>>>>> Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening. > >>>>>>>> I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces > >>>>>>>> in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in > >>>>>>>> CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable. > >>>>>>> How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree > >>>>>>> with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and > >>>>>>> consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry > >>>>>>> over usability. > >>>>>> That would be fine. I don't really care as long as it's deprecated. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> FWIW, only users who don't update /etc/defaults/rc.conf or who manually > >>>>>> set gif_interfaces="NO" would be effected so the size of the set of > >>>>>> effected users is probalby close to epilon and even all that will happen > >>>>>> is cloning an extra interface and then not configuring it so it should > >>>>>> be basicly harmless to just remove direct support for it. > >>>>> Fine with me as well. Should we make it a warning on RELENG_6 and an > >>>>> error on HEAD, or a warning on both. The former being be what I was > >>>>> planning to do, ie. remove support for "NO" in HEAD but issue a message > >>>>> saying semantics have changed. The latter would mean identical code in > >>>>> both HEAD and RELENG_6 (so "NO"-compatibility in both branches), but > >>>>> we'd need a reminder to remove this "NO"-support in HEAD once RELENG_7 > >>>>> is branched. > >>>> I'd say a warning in both. > >>> Re-reading Doug's message, he's probably thinking the same thing, but > >>> this is for gif_interfaces only, right? > >> That's what I'd do. There's no reason to introduce support for an > >> instantly deprecated feature in a new variable, particularly since > >> gif_interfaces is the odd one out. > > > > Yes. > > Here's the updated network.subr diff: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~flz/local/netsubr.diff Looks good to me. -- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200702090120.l191KLsb029058>