Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 19:52:55 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> Cc: 'Jason Hellenthal' <jhell@DataIX.net>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. Message-ID: <4DC8A887.6060806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <00df01cc0eb2$f9837010$ec8a5030$@vicor.com> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <4DC84E68.1000203@FreeBSD.org> <007d01cc0e9d$00301ff0$00905fd0$@vicor.com> <4DC8787A.9070003@FreeBSD.org> <00df01cc0eb2$f9837010$ec8a5030$@vicor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/09/2011 18:38, Devin Teske wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Doug Barton [mailto:dougb@FreeBSD.org] >> On 05/09/2011 16:01, Devin Teske wrote: >>> Hi Doug, >>> >>> First, let me say that we're on the same page, >> >> We're not, actually. > > In my locale, the phrase "we're on the same page" actually means "I agree with > your last statements." Your response is taken as if you mean to say that I was > wrong in agreeing with you. Wait, what? That doesn't rightly make much sense. > > I frankly don't understand the origin of this perceived hostility. I'm not going to debate the meaning of "on the same page" with you, so let be more clear. You and I do not agree. Oh, and there is no hostility. >>> but I'd like to take a shot at a worthwhile use-case. >>> >>> Also, I know you were addressing jhell but I thought I'd chime-in >>> because we >>> (VICOR) feel that this feature would be very useful to us (envisioned >>> use-case described below). >>> >>> Use Case: >>> >>> 1. One of many customers runs a site with, say, 35 servers and 89 > workstations. >>> 2. Each/every machine has a "role" which requires certain services to >>> be enabled 3. Server "roles" enable NFS, SSH, FTP, as well as other >>> services 4. Workstation "roles" have a wholly separate set of services >>> (with some >>> in-common) >>> 5. Pedestals are yet another "role" >>> 6. Machines can satisfy multiple roles 7. The roles are additive 8. >>> There are separate roles for different products >>> >>> So if we need hardware-A to run products A and B in roles "A-Server" >>> and "B-Server", we'd install "/etc/rc.conf.d/product-A-server.conf" >>> and "/etc/rc.conf.d/product-B-server.conf". >> >> You can already do this at least 2 different ways. The first is the method I > outlined >> in my previous post. > > If by that you mean your suggestion to add ". /path/file" to rc.conf(5) et. al., > that's non-copacetic as I forgot to mention that we (as a product vendor) do not > control rc.conf(5), rather our customers do. Do you control /etc/defaults/rc.conf? If so, you can change rc_conf_files. (See?, I told you I could come up with more ways to do the same thing.) > In fact, we have an rc.d script that uses sup(1)/cvsup(1) to pull down > rc.conf(5) from a central server, allowing central management of all machines. I haven't seen anything yet which eliminates the idea of sourcing the additional conf files from rc.conf[.local]. You just add something like: # Vicor product configuration: . /path/product-a-file I realize that you'd like to give the users full control over both of those files though, which is why I suggested /etc/defaults/rc.conf might be another solution. >> The second would be to have wrapper rc.d scripts in >> /usr/local/etc/rc.d that start the required services for either product; with > or >> without correspondingly named config files in /etc/rc.conf.d. (Personally I > would >> set the right values in the scripts themselves.) > > I find this suggestion to be a gross perversion of the boot process. So don't use it. My feelings won't be hurt. :) -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go 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?4DC8A887.6060806>