Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 13:02:21 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> To: Florent Thoumie <flz@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf Message-ID: <20070205190220.GA51379@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <45C77B9B.20403@FreeBSD.org> References: <20061029010934.5afef73e.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200610281610.k9SGAIVb051055@freefall.freebsd.org> <20070129000459.b2dba4e0.nork@FreeBSD.org> <45C757FA.2000209@FreeBSD.org> <20070205163646.GB48768@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <45C75E1F.2070709@FreeBSD.org> <45C77AFD.1050801@FreeBSD.org> <45C77B9B.20403@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:46:51PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: > > Florent Thoumie wrote: > >> Brooks Davis wrote: > >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 04:14:50PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote: > >>>> Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:10:18 GMT > >>>>> FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org wrote: > >>>>>> Thank you very much for your problem report. > >>>>>> It has the internal identification `conf/104884'. > >>>>>> The individual assigned to look at your > >>>>>> report is: freebsd-bugs. You can access the state of your problem > >>>>>> report at any time > >>>>>> via this link: > >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=104884 > >>>>>>> Category: conf > >>>>>>> Responsible: freebsd-bugs > >>>>>>> Synopsis: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf > >>>>>>> Arrival-Date: Sat Oct 28 16:10:18 GMT 2006 > >>>>> I chased HEAD. Please see following patch. > >>>>> Anyone, please handle this PR? > >>>>> And I'll make a patch for 6-stable. > >>>>> > >>>> I've made my comments on this. Maybe someone else should review it? > >>> It seems basicly fine and should be useful. (At least until someone > >>> finally shoots the netgraph part of ng_fec in the head.) I'd like to > >>> see "" be the offical way to not configure any fec interfaces. gif_up's > >>> use of NO is a mistake (IMO). It would be OK to allow "NO" as an > >>> undocumented synanim for "". > >> > >> Agreed, as said in my previous post. > >> > >> I think we could just set gif_interfaces and fec_interfaces to "" in > >> -CURRENT and add the "NO" compatibility in RELENG_6 when MFC time comes? > >> That would be a candidate for 7.0 RELNOTES. > >> > >> Does it make any sense to you? > > > > My instinct is to have it the other way around, with "NO" being the > > default, and "" being a synonym. We've trained people that "NO" is the > > way to turn things off with rc, and the one glaring exception to that > > rule (sendmail) has caused an enormous amount of confusion over the years. > > > > Other than that, I have no objections here. > > IMHO, it makes sense to have "NO" as opposed to "YES". In this case, > it's a list. So an empty list would be "", but keeping > "NO"-compatibility for the -STABLE branch ensures POLA. At least that's > how I see it. I agree. It's a list not a Boolean. There's no reason to poison its name space this way. Also, gif_interfaces is the only *_interfaces variable that takes "NO" as a special argument. The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening. I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable. -- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070205190220.GA51379>