Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 20:21:45 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Gordon Tetlow <gordon@tetlows.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. Message-ID: <20110510002145.GD2558@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTin679hJDiAB8bZkaUER2L7bC97x5Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <BANLkTi=hozQBLUC15NsF2rky2OfFW=t_RQ@mail.gmail.com> <01d201cc0e6c$47d4b180$d77e1480$@vicor.com> <BANLkTimqhu215ZdHwx=fHqu33NXj2pYpvw@mail.gmail.com> <20110509190441.GC82456@DataIX.net> <BANLkTin679hJDiAB8bZkaUER2L7bC97x5Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--qGV0fN9tzfkG3CxV
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gordon,
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 04:50:57PM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> wrot=
e:
> >
> > Gordon,
> >
> > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 10:32:18AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> wrote:
> >> > The solution is to have a script that can tell you these two details:
> >> >
> >> > 1. What is the final value of ``*_enable''
> >> > 2. Which file assigns said final value
> >> >
> >> > If you have those two pieces of information, then unraveling a twist=
ed
> >> > configuration is easier.
> >> >
> >> > [Re-]welcome my sysrc(8) script:
> >>
> >> While this is a very cool script, I have to wonder how far we have
> >> strayed if we require another tool to tell us how the system is
> >> configured. Surely we should be aiming for simplicity in our
> >> implementation and not something incredibly complex.
> >>
> >> After Jason's proposal, we would have the following list of configurat=
ion files:
> >>
> >> /etc/defaults/rc.conf
> >> /etc/rc.conf
> >> /etc/rc.conf.local
> >
> > What seems to be lost here is that the below two are "optional" not
> > something that should be created by anything other than the user who ne=
eds
> > that functionality. Yes having two of the below is a problem. Yes {name}
> > needs to go. But until there is something to replace it in a way that is
> > agreed on we cant get rid of the broken {name} implement.
>=20
> The {name} implementation isn't broken, it just doesn't do what you want =
it to.
>=20
> I would be hesitant to remove the {name} implementation, it's been
> there since the 5.x days. It's hard to say how many installations rely
> on it being there.
>=20
Though I would like to I agree with that. You dint just introduce an=20
interface and remove it later down the road with a long winded deprecation=
=20
process. This certainly could be the start of that deprecation process.
"It just doesn't do what it is suggested to do" not what I want it to do=20
by rc.conf(5) which is part of the reason why this patch came into play.=20
You can't just provide a space to use and then suggest to the user that=20
they only use certain undocumented names that are provided by rc.d/*=20
scripts. It's a waste of their time thinking that they can just put for=20
instance 'jail, jail1, jail2' in rc.conf.d and it'll work. It does not=20
unless you start adding source this and that lines to the end of every=20
file and that would not be right to suggest to the end-user either.
Though if it is documented well enough I do not see any fathomable reason=
=20
why a user should not be allowed to make up a name that contains what they=
=20
want to be in it. The rc.conf.d directory suggests its very use just as=20
anyone would believe about usr/local/etc/apache22/Includes/*.conf.
Out of all the opposition yet I still have not seen a valid response of=20
"what is wrong with letting the user decide how they name a configuration=
=20
file?". I keep seeing the opposite of well you can do this and you can do=
=20
that with shell scripting options. That shocks me as this is like stated=20
before a user specified created and maintained directory.
--=20
Regards, (jhell)
Jason Hellenthal
--qGV0fN9tzfkG3CxV
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD)
Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyIUYAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+t/sH/igSxUPV66powmaOT8XRtGa9
ZbOmz+eQwy5vr2+eGs3bhs4GmXdcKErcHG5Jvj7cLtI5F28VVtimKE9yiNO+3bKM
5I1LA6uF7TiU3tpZ8WuKgNZBCam3YU/DC4lFKdvwnmLYGIJzYWRU7ofljj7jB1ck
mOUzXUyOndEJ88hUyDTsroay+mnap8RwSPqVTBWoxakNMCdMTPI1TyR1EKv75QtF
7nb9SmH/veEeFMJ5MiDT5qWJUQLPNObm1/5v5cpnOSOjfH4k/9e20PjD2U5jSku1
pmDCUoWbG8gsVzkIKB+k+wl4TuinZXYYMSp7YheP7V466IOSdUj38yLSqT14TUo=
=0dti
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qGV0fN9tzfkG3CxV--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110510002145.GD2558>