> > > > They're going into /usr/share/examples/ppp soon.
> > > > [...]
> > > > Besides, with all this activity, it'd be nice to get out of /etc
> > > > altogether :-)
> > >
> > > Have another think about it. /etc/defaults does have its
> > merits but it isn't
> > > going to work well unless everyone buys into it.
> >
> > /etc/defaults is for default knobs that are turned on by
> > default and may
> > be overridden. Examples are knobs that are not turned on by
> > default. Can
> > you see why the ppp examples are not a candidate for "buy in"?
>
> I don't really agree, defaults is not for knobs that are turned on by
> default, for a start that assumes binary state which isn't the case.
> /etc/defaults will have the defaults for *all* knobs. That would include
> options that are disabled by default.
>
> Specifically with regard to ppp, having it work the same way would require
> changing ppp configuration code to parse a local file for overrides but
> there's no reason why all configuration couldn't adopt the same general
> principle of operation i.e. a defaults file that sets all configuration
> knobs into a default state and then a local override file for local changes.
I see no problem with the `default' section in ppp.conf. It allows
the specification of defaults that can be overridden by individual
profiles.
ppp.*.sample are samples. They are purely there to give people a
feel for what their configuration files might look like and to show
them how to achieve things that require quite a few commands - such
as playing server, doing multilink etc.
> Paul.
Besides, IMHO, /etc/defaults will either be abused by system
administrators or will be a poor-mans copy of src/etc. I can't see
the problems going away by using something like this.
--
Brian <br...@awfulhak.org> <br...@freebsd.org> <br...@openbsd.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
