Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 01:35:34 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace. Message-ID: <20110510053534.GD18435@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4DC8C52E.9040203@FreeBSD.org> References: <20110508191336.GC3527@DataIX.net> <4DC84E68.1000203@FreeBSD.org> <007d01cc0e9d$00301ff0$00905fd0$@vicor.com> <4DC8787A.9070003@FreeBSD.org> <20110509235746.GC2558@DataIX.net> <4DC8A592.2090202@FreeBSD.org> <20110510040822.GB18435@DataIX.net> <4DC8C52E.9040203@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--u65IjBhB3TIa72Vp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:55:10PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> This will be my last post on this topic unless something new arises.=20
> Please don't cc me on any more responses.
>=20
> On 05/09/2011 21:08, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
> >
> > Doug,
> >
> > On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 07:40:18PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2011 16:57, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Doug,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 04:27:54PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry Doug but rc.conf.d is already laid out for the user to use as
> >>> mentioned by rc.conf(5) with a suggested use but unfortunately has qu=
ite a
> >>> few side effects that I am not going to bother re-writing about again.
> >>
> >> I read what you have written to date, but I don't see anything other
> >> than "It doesn't work the way I want it to." I just re-read the
> >> description in rc.conf.5, and I think it's clear, but I wouldn't object
> >> to suggestions to improve it.
> >>
> >>> In reply to your previous email here is one exercise that should point
> >>> out the broken functionality fairly clearly or at least I hope clearly
> >>> enough that you realize how a normal user would look at it.
> >>>
> >>> From scratch, no rc.conf.
> >>
> >> No normal user would do that, so I reject your premise. :)
> >>
> >
> > Ok let me re-state that because you seem to have taken that litterally =
as
> > absolutely no rc.conf. "A rc.conf but without the needed nfs related
> > parts" This is an example!.
>=20
> Hence the smiley.
>=20
> >>> Setup a NFS server with lockd, statd, mountd,
> >>> rpcbind using only rc.conf.d/${_name} namespace and then try starting
> >>> these services using service(8) and /etc/rc.d/* files. Then read
> >>> rc.conf(5) and tell me the suggestion for jail makes sense.
> >>
> >> The various nfs-related options are a particularly pathological case, =
no
> >> one is disputing that. However, for the vast majority of purposes the
> >> one-name-at-a-time method works fine. And given that most users don't
> >> need anything even approaching the type of functionality that you're
> >> proposing, I still don't see a problem.
> >>
> >
> > I was not asking your you opinion of the way it works. You asked for an
> > example and one was given and you seem to be all opposed to even going
> > through and testing out that example to see where the stumbling blocks =
are
> > as you apparently have no recognition of them now. NFS is not the only =
case.
>=20
> To the extent I understand your paragraph above, I don't think you=20
> really understand where I'm coming from at all. I don't need to follow=20
> your suggestion, I already know that for the particular pathological=20
> case you described the rc.conf.d method is not appropriate.
>=20
> What you seem to be missing is that your suggestion is not necessary to=
=20
> solve the problem. To the extent that it is necessary to provide a=20
> solution to this at all, multiple solutions already exist.
>=20
> >>> I do not quite understand why you take such an opposition against
> >>> something that fixes this broken functionality but yet retains its
> >>> original use.
> >>
> >> Gordon has already stated it fairly eloquently, but I'll paraphrase. T=
oo
> >> much potential for user confusion, for too little benefit. I realize
> >> that to you this sounds like a simple change, but the problem is that
> >> when you add knobs, users twist them. So every change to something as
> >> fundamental as the boot system needs to have really strong justificati=
on.
> >>
> >
> > Sadly at this point you still seem to not realize the complicated state
> > that rc.conf.d is in.
>=20
> I hope you'll understand if once again I respectfully disagree.
>=20
> > This is not adding a new knob
>=20
> I was using that in the colloquial sense. If you give users the chance=20
> to do something, some percentage of them will do it.
>=20
> > and you seem to miss
> > that part as well. This fixes that complication on the rc.conf.d direct=
ory
> > and it could be properly implemented in a way that it should have been =
in
> > the first place as the manual suggests.
> >
> >
> > What do you propose to do with the manual page ?
>=20
> What I'm saying is that IMO there is nothing in rc.conf.5 that is=20
> confusing, and if you believe that it needs to be clarified please feel=
=20
> free to submit suggestions.
>=20
Unfortuneately at Doug's request this will not be CC'd, but this is also=20
the intention of this thread as well. As stated earlier in the thread with=
=20
my proposal to tidy this up I also said that once it is laid out for=20
something that is agreed upon that I would update the manual accordingly.=
=20
Doing this before the said seen needed fixes to uncomplicate the use of=20
rc.conf.d would be be a great loss of time as it would require documenting=
=20
every rc.d script, the names that are exported from them and putting=20
together every combination of such. This type of complexity is what is=20
trying to be avoided while still allowing the user to create well named=20
organized custom configurations.
--=20
Regards, (jhell)
Jason Hellenthal
--u65IjBhB3TIa72Vp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD)
Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNyM6lAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+MR0IAIByeg1uoH3xqXKpWdAuc8U2
yIleF39vTuxowgTjn8kyk42UbHjcsKkIF+rV2L1BFyG5TwK4HDwwVaKGJ10OURby
gEIIYWyBDyTtODaBDGtFG6uHc3aAXJF1DoV6LgIP1VVMk0kBU7vupk+6Og+xLaZc
S1dzYEbPoSiHcgjw+dKqCr6IDO1AJHuXlk2/nBCgF4ao2GASjVNoeoHpgHR+ik+I
un9tSftb4XcYAFnZEPTRglLVb0Ms5IcEVmHuk81sCdWz9tf0OjpdW6DYsIutrrff
I71CWyocluBp/0ghOkLNlPxhza+vyGsmofxEd4Nib82VaGEaLEdq7ObKXc0wjcU=
=ekDW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--u65IjBhB3TIa72Vp--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110510053534.GD18435>