Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:43:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: gibbs@narnia.plutotech.com (Justin T. Gibbs) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: devfs persistence Message-ID: <199802212243.PAA05014@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199802211919.MAA03325@narnia.plutotech.com> from "Justin T. Gibbs" at Feb 21, 98 12:19:14 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I would argue for build-time, and let you edit the class template > > data if you felt inclined to do it post-build. But I'm just being > > generous; there's no real reason for allowing that, especially in a > > first revision, since you always have rc.local. > > I don't think that class templates are generic enough. When I worked > for TCS at Cal Berkely, we had a machine that had everything but one > public tape drive locked in a cabinet. The system had one tape drive > for nightly dumps that only the sysadmins could access with a key. So, > as you can imagine, the permissions on the two devices were quite > different even though they were members of the same class. You must have missed the part about "rc.local". 8-) 8-). I know situations like this will exist, but 90% of the time the class approach will get the right answer by default, and another 8% of the time it will get the right answer by making a class policy change, and 2% of the time, well, it needs an rc.local. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?199802212243.PAA05014>