Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 13:16:28 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: some woes about rc.conf.site Message-ID: <199902072116.NAA26516@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199902072048.MAA07248@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> :> What do you think ? Or what are your experiences ? : :I hate it unreservedly. If we need a source of seeded default values, :we should have rc.conf.default, uncommented, read-only. rc.conf is :where people expect to make their changes, and it is immensely bogus to :have sysinstall creating rc.conf.site which is quietly included *after* :everything in rc.conf (so that when someone changes rc.conf, the change :is overridden). : :-- My opinion is that since we have /etc/rc and /etc/rc.local, we might as well use /etc/rc.conf and /etc/rc.conf.local the same way -- that is, just as /etc/rc should not be touched by anyone, neither should /etc/rc.conf be touched by anyone. sysinstall ( and any other GUI configurator ) should mess with /etc/rc.conf.site The user messes with /etc/rc.conf.local Perhaps the problem is that we are simply naming these things badly. Frankly, I would rather get rid of rc.conf.site entirely and just leave rc.conf and rc.conf.local -- and have sysinstall mess with rc.conf.local. -Matt Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902072116.NAA26516>