Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:56:49 +0100 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Pyun Yong-Hyeon <pyunyh@gmail.com>, d@delphij.net, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Annoying ERROR: 'wlan0' is not a DHCP-enabled interface Message-ID: <20111224215649.GA12789@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <4EF6401E.3080902@FreeBSD.org> References: <n2Hlz4MXZMNcNzN56fSf6/or7Ig@YnbH/K3/Y1Z96RV2jTofcGuSPJI> <4EF6401E.3080902@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 01:11:58PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > 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. And rea@'s patch does this: service dhclient start IF generates error messages if IF is not enabled for DHCP in rc.conf, while service dhclient quietstart IF does not. This works the same way as service food start/quietstart when food is not enabled in rc.conf. Therefore I do not see what is wrong with rea@'s patch. > 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. In general, I think the defaults should be set up like a user would want them. This is because people want to edit the configuration files as little as possible and also as few of them as possible, so upgrading is as easy as possible. On a server, /etc/devd.conf rarely needs any changes, so for the purpose of this issue assume that it will not be modified and there will be error messages needlessly confusing people. Even more so because the change to devd.conf would duplicate information that is already in rc.conf. -- Jilles Tjoelker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111224215649.GA12789>