From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 24 21:11:59 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DE811065675; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:11:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C076B14FC85; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:11:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EF6401E.3080902@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:11:58 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eygene Ryabinkin References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pyun Yong-Hyeon , freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, Garrett Cooper , Gleb Smirnoff , d@delphij.net Subject: Re: Annoying ERROR: 'wlan0' is not a DHCP-enabled interface X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:11:59 -0000 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. 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. Doug -- [^L] Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/