Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:43:45 -0200 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordont@gnf.org> Cc: Mike Makonnen <mtm@identd.net>, current@freebsd.org, obrien@freebsd.org, Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RC NG, ntp and routed Message-ID: <3DF716E1.5090903@tcoip.com.br> In-Reply-To: <3DF4996E.1040706@tcoip.com.br> References: <3DF4996E.1040706@tcoip.com.br> <20021210024350.GC16008@matrix.identd.net> <20021210162208.GJ45512@roark.gnf.org> <3DF61DE4.9070205@tcoip.com.br> <20021210225014.GA22267@matrix.identd.net> <20021211002318.GT45512@roark.gnf.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gordon Tetlow wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:50:14PM -0800, Mike Makonnen wrote: > > >On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 03:01:24PM -0200, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > > >>On another note, I thought the patch a bit excessive. Here, I just=20 > added > >>BEFORE: ntpd to routed. OTOH, it seems that patch did a bit more. > > > >It's not excessive. It's the correct solution. > >Your solution solves your specific problem but it's > >not the right way to go about solving the problem. It's kind of hard t= o > >explain, you have to work with it for a while to get the hang of it. F= or > >some things it might be easier _and_ right to say this must come befor= e > >that. In this case; however, ntpd requires that routing be available = > as a > >prerequisite, but there's no real relationship that exists between > >the two that necessitates routed having to know about ntpd. If we were= > >to follow your example to its logical conclusion the BEFORE line for > >the routing daemons would have to include _every_ daemon that requires= > >network availability. I think in this case it would be more correct to= > >have the network daemons REQUIRE the routing daemons. Does that make > >sense? I agree with this analysis. It's just that the patch presented touched=20 more files than ntpd alone. > Ideally, ntpd should require NETWORKING and that should solve all=20 > problems. > The real problem is that routed is included with DAEMON, not NETWORKING= =2E I > think that's the real problem and judging that routed is in /sbin, we=20 > could > probably move it there without a problem. Err, not so fast, please. FreeBSD's routed is in /sbin, but I daresay=20 quite a few of those who actually need a dynamic router resort to ports=20 (specifically, Zebra and Gated). So let's not haste needlessly here. We are in code freeze, and these=20 changes need not enter before 5.0-R. Let's understand the problem and=20 the issues throughly, and produce a correct solution. --=20 Daniel C. Sobral Ger=EAncia de Opera=E7=F5es Divis=E3o de Comunica=E7=E3o de Dados Coordena=E7=E3o de Seguran=E7a TCO Fones: 55-61-313-7654/Cel: 55-61-9618-0904 E-mail: Daniel.Capo@tco.net.br Daniel.Sobral@tcoip.com.br dcs@tcoip.com.br To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3DF716E1.5090903>