From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Feb 1 8:48:41 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [204.179.120.85]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 759A237B405; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 08:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-relay02.mac.com (server-source-si02 [10.13.10.6]) by smtpout.mac.com (8.12.1/8.10.2/1.0) with ESMTP id g116HXFV015757; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:17:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from asmtp01.mac.com ([10.13.10.65]) by smtp-relay02.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 relay02 Jun 21 2001 23:53:48) with ESMTP id GQUC5900.KDB; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:17:33 -0800 Received: from localhost ([142.163.64.96]) by asmtp01.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 asmtp01 Jun 21 2001 23:53:48) with ESMTP id GQUC5800.4K4; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:17:32 -0800 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 02:47:30 -0330 Subject: Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480) Cc: stable@freebsd.org To: current@freebsd.org From: Paul Fardy In-Reply-To: <15448.64681.401219.163184@guru.mired.org> Message-Id: <5F46C986-16DB-11D6-8CEC-00039359034A@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Paul Fardy types: >> When the rc.conf file includes >> foo_enable="NO" >> it's right to expect that the system will operate like a system that does >> not >> have foo installed. On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 04:43 AM, Mike Meyer wrote: > So you think that if I install a syslog from ports that's started via > /usr/local/etc/rc.d/syslogd.sh, "syslog_enable=NO" in /etc/rc.conf > should disable it? For that matter, if I set ipfilter_enable="YES" and > firewall_enable="NO", should the system enable ipfilter or not, as > there are two contradictory things. These aren't similar situations. Your syslog example is essentially an issue of scope or name space and not the meaning "enable" or of "no". It's my understanding that the values in /etc/rc.conf apply to the FreeBSD core and not to any version that someone might install to override the core version. The configuration for an package that sits in /usr/local should be found in /usr/local/etc. I'd be disappointed to see packages that don't follow such a policy. There are many examples in rc.conf similar to your suggested contradiction: natd_enable="NO" natd_interface="fxp0" inetd_enable="NO" inetd_program="/usr/sbin/inetd" These examples, _and_yours_, are examples that suggest that /etc/rc.conf has a fundamental principle that foo_enable="YES/NO" is supreme. One can set up all the requisite parameters (e.g. you can create sendmail.cf, named.conf, tune inetd.conf, compile psm into the kernel or install any of various screen savers), yet one can still set an appropriate variable foo_enable="NO" which will not enable the feature. > Not enabling something is *not* the same thing as disabling it. But I think that the intent in /etc/rc.conf is that enable="NO" _is_ the same thing as disabling it. You might say "If that were the intent, they'd have used _______." What word should we use to indicate the absolute YES or NO that some of us believe should be the simple correct interpretation? Paul Fardy To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message