On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 02:21:09PM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> Rather that listen to people wail over the next few months, it was
> decided instead to go to a slight variation on the previous theme in
> hopes that more people will be happy with the compromise.
>
> In essence, what used to be
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 16:56:48 PST, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
> mergemaster is your friend.
Mergemaster will help you update /etc/defaults/rc.conf, but you'll need
to use something else to merge changes from that file into /etc/rc.conf
.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.
mergemaster is your friend.
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Jay Nelson wrote:
> I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but has anyone given any
> consideration to upgrade installs? If an upgrade doesn't plant the new
> default files in /etc/default[s] after an upgrade, we now have two
> places and t
I may have missed this earlier in the thread, but has anyone given any
consideration to upgrade installs? If an upgrade doesn't plant the new
default files in /etc/default[s] after an upgrade, we now have two
places and twice the files to compare on upgrade.
As unorthodox as it sounds, if these de
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Somers [mailto:br...@awfulhak.org]
> Sent: 11 February 1999 20:56
> To: p...@originative.co.uk
> Cc: a...@iafrica.com; br...@awfulhak.org; tr49...@rcc.on.ca;
> curr...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Heads up! /etc/rc.conf.site is dead.
On 11 Feb 1999 kai.grossjoh...@cs.uni-dortmund.de wrote:
> Jon Hamilton writes:
>
> > But then you're right back where you started. Since rc.conf isn't
> > supposed to be touched by the install/upgrade tools, it'll get out
> > of date (and will become a hinderance rather than a help) as
>
> > > > 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 ever
Jon Hamilton writes:
> But then you're right back where you started. Since rc.conf isn't
> supposed to be touched by the install/upgrade tools, it'll get out
> of date (and will become a hinderance rather than a help) as
> default settings change, and as settings are added/deleted.
Can
> -Original Message-
> From: Sheldon Hearn [mailto:a...@iafrica.com]
> Sent: 11 February 1999 13:24
> To: p...@originative.co.uk
> Cc: br...@awfulhak.org; tr49...@rcc.on.ca; curr...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Heads up! /etc/rc.conf.site is dead.
>
>
>
&g
What I don't like from the new "rc.conf" approach is the name
"rc.conf" ;-). I think that the old "sysconfig" should come back.
Then, there would be a /etc/defaults/sysconfig (R/O), and a
/etc/sysconfig (storing the site-specific config). These files
would contain _only_ variable assignments. The /
Hi Paul,
Just a few criticisms of your comments...
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:56:31 GMT, p...@originative.co.uk wrote:
> Adding new knobs will be a doddle, the default file gets a new knob, with
> it's default setting and it'll just work.
It won't be "a doddle" if, as you suggested, the defaults
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Somers [mailto:br...@awfulhak.org]
> Sent: 10 February 1999 18:47
> To: RT
> Cc: curr...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Heads up! /etc/rc.conf.site is dead.
>
>
> > I kinda like the /etc./defaults directory... All default
> I think people will get used to /etc/defaults fairly
> quickly
just a note on naming: Solaris as well as HP-UX have "/etc/default", not
"/etc/defaults". Seeing that we're introducing a change, we might just
as well move to something others use as well.
regards
Michael
--
Michael Schuster
> I kinda like the /etc./defaults directory... All default files should be
> placed there. Only things edited should be in /etc.. It'll make for a much
> smaller mess of files. I'm wondering about items like ppp examples?
They're going into /usr/share/examples/ppp soon. I have some other
thing
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, jack wrote:
>
> > If /etc/rc.conf only contains changes from the defaults when
> > man something_or_other tells the user to find and edit
> > something_or_other_flags in /etc/rc.conf the entry won't be
> > there to edit.
>
> Why must it contain only changes? Is there any
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 20:42:40 CST, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> > But, I would not expect/allow "defaults" to be the mechanism
> > which includes the "real" values.
>
> Neither would I, but only because this hasn't been made clear in such
> a way that
In message , Richar
d Wackerbarth wrote:
}
} On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, John Fieber wrote:
}
} > On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, jack wrote:
} >
} > > If /etc/rc.conf only contains changes from the defaults when
} > > man something_or_other tells the user to find and edit
} > > something_or_other_flags in /etc
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, John Fieber wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, jack wrote:
>
> > If /etc/rc.conf only contains changes from the defaults when
> > man something_or_other tells the user to find and edit
> > something_or_other_flags in /etc/rc.conf the entry won't be
> > there to edit.
>
> Why m
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 20:42:40 CST, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> But, I would not expect/allow "defaults" to be the mechanism
> which includes the "real" values.
Neither would I, but only because this hasn't been made clear in such
a way that guys like you and me "get it". I reckon that a comment
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, jack wrote:
> If /etc/rc.conf only contains changes from the defaults when
> man something_or_other tells the user to find and edit
> something_or_other_flags in /etc/rc.conf the entry won't be
> there to edit.
Why must it contain only changes? Is there any reason it
couldn
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, John Fieber wrote:
> Lets not forget that with the latest round of changes, the
> rc.conf in 3.1 will behave exactly as it has in the past. Think
> about it. rc.conf was a "touchees" file in the past and it is a
> "touchees" file now. The only difference is the addition of a
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :As Jordan pointed out, this gets very messy very quickly.
> :
> :> I don't think we should have an /etc/defaults/ directory, but if
> :> it is insisted on then *ALL* the read-only files should be moved into
> :> it, not just one of them.
> :
But, I would not expect/allow "defaults" to be the mechanism
which includes the "real" values. Perhaps this should be pushed
into the script that will source both.
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> > The only difference is the addition of a "no touchees" reference copy
> > in /etc/defaul
I tend to prefer that the editable knobs be kept together.
The uneditable scripts and the defaults can go together.
If you are going to divide things, I don't see why you should
put uneditable scripts with editable knobs and apart from
uneditable knobs.
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, RT wrote:
> I kinda like
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Dillon
To: Richard Wackerbarth
Cc: Jordan K. Hubbard ; Matthew Dillon
; David Wolfskill ;
curr...@freebsd.org
Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: Heads up! /etc/rc.conf.site is dead.
>:I like the idea of having all the "defau
On Tue, 09 Feb 1999 19:33:21 EST, John Fieber wrote:
> The only difference is the addition of a "no touchees" reference copy
> in /etc/defaults that gets sourced before rc.conf so any essential
> variables introduced in an upgrade will have a safety fallaback in
> case you don't properly upgrade
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, jack wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > I think it's a *BAD* idea to change rc.conf operation for the 3.1
> > distribution. Bad Bad Bad.
>
> I have to agree. Let's not forget that there are over 30 man
> pages with references to /etc/rc.conf.
I understand the scaling issue.
However, I like to keep related things in one place.
Perhaps we need to move ALL the rc files into a common
directory.
As for the "read-only" argument, I recommend, for those
who wish to separate them, symbolic links from the read
only area to a writable area. When t
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I think it's a *BAD* idea to change rc.conf operation for the 3.1
> distribution. Bad Bad Bad.
I have to agree. Let's not forget that there are over 30 man
pages with references to /etc/rc.conf. There is already enough
confusion over wcd in
:As Jordan pointed out, this gets very messy very quickly.
:
:> I don't think we should have an /etc/defaults/ directory, but if
:> it is insisted on then *ALL* the read-only files should be moved into
:> it, not just one of them.
:
:All of the files that currently mix read-only and rea
> :
> :Personally, I have to side with Matt.
> :I like to have ALL of the files in one directory.
> :That way I can "grep ntpd /etc/rc*" and find ALL the line that are likely
> :to affect it. Moving some of the files into another directory just
> :complicates things.
> :
> :I like the idea of havin
:
:Personally, I have to side with Matt.
:I like to have ALL of the files in one directory.
:That way I can "grep ntpd /etc/rc*" and find ALL the line that are likely
:to affect it. Moving some of the files into another directory just
:complicates things.
:
:I like the idea of having all the "defau
> I like the idea of having all the "default knobs" in one file.
> I recommend /etc/rc.conf.defaults
The problem is that this doesn't scale. We (Mike and I) already
debated this one back and forth for awhile and decided that quite a
few files in /etc were due to be ".defaulted" and if this were k
Personally, I have to side with Matt.
I like to have ALL of the files in one directory.
That way I can "grep ntpd /etc/rc*" and find ALL the line that are likely
to affect it. Moving some of the files into another directory just
complicates things.
I like the idea of having all the "default knobs"
> If you want to put 'read only' junk into /etc/defaults, then why aren't
> you also sticking /etc/rc, /etc/rc.network, /etc/rc.firewall, etc etc etc
> into /etc/defaults ? It makes no sense to have an /etc/defaults/
> directory if you are still mixing read-only and user-modifiabl
Which rc.conf do you mean? :) The one in defaults/ will do everything
the old one did save source rc.conf.site.
- Jordan
> >Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 14:21:09 -0800
> >From: "Jordan K. Hubbard"
>
> >Since that made rc.conf.site obsolete, it was taken out of the
> >configuration. Please move it t
:> Now we have /etc/defaults/rc.conf, /etc/rc.conf, and /etc/rc.conf.local.
:> Considerably less simple and quite unobvious.
:
:Until you have to upgrade to the latest set of "knobs"; that problem
:is something I think people are not focusing sufficiently on in
:commenting only on the down
:> Now we have /etc/defaults/rc.conf, /etc/rc.conf, and /etc/rc.conf.local.
:> Considerably less simple and quite unobvious.
:
:Erm... I thought that the point of /etc/defaults/rc.conf was that one
:wouldn't touch it, and only work with rc.conf?
:
:(Haven't looked at the change myself, as
> Now we have /etc/defaults/rc.conf, /etc/rc.conf, and /etc/rc.conf.local.
> Considerably less simple and quite unobvious.
Until you have to upgrade to the latest set of "knobs"; that problem
is something I think people are not focusing sufficiently on in
commenting only on the downsides o
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Sniff. I liked rc.conf where it was. /etc/rc, /etc/rc.conf.
> /etc/rc.local, /etc/rc.conf.local. Simple and obvious.
>
> Now we have /etc/defaults/rc.conf, /etc/rc.conf, and /etc/rc.conf.local.
> Considerably less simple and quite uno
:>configuration. Please move it to rc.conf on your system, should you
:>be one of those folks who installed from an earlier snapshot and are
:>now updating your /etc from -current or -stable sources (not likely to
:>be all that many people). This change will also be in 3.1.
:
:OK; I gather that (
>Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 14:21:09 -0800
>From: "Jordan K. Hubbard"
>Since that made rc.conf.site obsolete, it was taken out of the
>configuration. Please move it to rc.conf on your system, should you
>be one of those folks who installed from an earlier snapshot and are
>now updating your /etc fro
42 matches
Mail list logo
