Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:56:55 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Cc: Pyun Yong-Hyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com>, d@delphij.net, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Annoying ERROR: 'wlan0' is not a DHCP-enabled interface Message-ID: <4EF80CA7.3070303@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111224215649.GA12789@stack.nl> References: <n2Hlz4MXZMNcNzN56fSf6/or7Ig@YnbH/K3/Y1Z96RV2jTofcGuSPJI> <4EF6401E.3080902@FreeBSD.org> <20111224215649.GA12789@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/24/2011 13:56, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 01:11:58PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 12/24/2011 03:21, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: >>> Please, explain your point here. (*) > >> I have, several times now, and I'm getting tired of explaining it again. >> We seem to have lost sight of what "asking for feedback" entails around >> here. Namely that sometimes the feedback is, "That's a bad idea, please >> don't do it." I've tried to say it politely, and I've tried to explain >> the reasoning behind why what you're proposing is a bad idea, but you >> don't agree with my reasoning. It's Ok that you don't agree, it's even >> Ok for you to naively assume that the reason I don't agree is that I >> don't understand the issues/code/etc. as well as you do. But that >> doesn't change the fact that what you're proposing is a bad idea. > >> For the record: It's more important for users to see error messages for >> interfaces that *should* be configured, but don't succeed; than it is to >> hide occasional spam for interfaces where configuration is attempted >> spuriously. > > And rea@'s patch does this: > service dhclient start IF > generates error messages if IF is not enabled for DHCP in rc.conf, while > service dhclient quietstart IF > does not. > > This works the same way as service food start/quietstart when food is > not enabled in rc.conf. > > Therefore I do not see what is wrong with rea@'s patch. That's not the interesting case. The interesting case is the interface *is* configured with DHCP, but no error message is generated when it fails because they've been hidden. >> If *you* don't want to see that spam then *you* have it in your power, >> through various configuration knobs, to make it stop. If you don't care >> to do that, that's your choice as well. At this point we've already >> expended way more energy on this topic than it was ever worth. > > In general, I think the defaults should be set up like a user would want > them. This is because people want to edit the configuration files as > little as possible and also as few of them as possible, so upgrading is > as easy as possible. > > On a server, /etc/devd.conf rarely needs any changes, so for the purpose > of this issue assume that it will not be modified and there will be > error messages needlessly confusing people. That's the bit that's confusing to me. I've administered hundreds of FreeBSD systems, servers and desktops, with and without DHCP, and I don't remember ever seeing these messages. Perhaps someone can show the configuration combination that will create them? If so, I'll be glad to give the patch another look to confirm that my concerns about false negatives are being addressed. Doug -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EF80CA7.3070303>