On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 06:40:58PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote:
> Yes, I have. It doesn't make much of a dent in the real problem, which
> is separating diffs like:
Good point.
I adopted the rc.local solution some time ago, which simplified matters
a lot for me. As yet, I've not been caug
I agree with this approach. However, I believe this is OBE. Jkh just
committed the changes to cvs.
Having the default values at the head of rc makes more sense.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
I'd have to agree with another message. Merging the defaults into rc sounds
to me like the best solution, then have rc.conf handle the changes. I
personally prefer to hand edit this file. This is coming from a user on
3.0-stable however... .conf normally means that it should be edited, not
left
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 10:11:48PM +, Adrian Wontroba wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 03:14:22PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote:
> > I haven't used it yet, but I definately think the idea is an
> > improvement. I hate trying to update /etc after an upgrade.. if it's
> > been a while, or it's
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 03:14:22PM -0500, Christopher Masto wrote:
> I haven't used it yet, but I definately think the idea is an
> improvement. I hate trying to update /etc after an upgrade.. if it's
> been a while, or it's between major versions, it can take a very
> significant amount of time.
>Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 12:48:13 -0800
>From: Mike Smith
>> 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
> Hopefully that is now fixed.
It is.
- Jordan
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 04:33:00PM -0800, Parag Patel wrote:
> > Because rc.conf contains configuration variables, whereas rc contains
> > commands to execute at boot time.
>
> Then I would suggest renaming rc.conf to be rc.vars or rc.config-vars
> or something more appropriate than rc.conf, whi
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
> 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
Absolutely...agreed!
_
Lauri Laupmaa
...speaking for myself only...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to maj
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Masto [mailto:ch...@netmonger.net]
> Sent: 07 February 1999 20:14
> To: curr...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: was: some woes about rc.conf.site
>
>
> I haven't used it yet, but I definately think the idea is an
> impro
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 12:48:13PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote:
>
> 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 sysinstal
> Because rc.conf contains configuration variables, whereas rc contains
> commands to execute at boot time.
Then I would suggest renaming rc.conf to be rc.vars or rc.config-vars
or something more appropriate than rc.conf, which like all the other
*.conf files is intended for local editing and m
> Then why bother having rc.conf in the first place? Just wire in all
> the defaults straight into /etc/rc and leave rc.conf strictly for
> overriding the defaults only, and eliminate rc.conf.* entirely.
Because rc.conf contains configuration variables, whereas rc contains
commands to execute
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> What do you think ? Or what are your experiences ?
It has caused a lot of grief with my recent install of
3.0-19990205, but I gather I'm supposed to install something
later before complaining.
The main annoyance has been that running /stand/sysinstall a
> 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.
>
> :>
> :> 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 sy
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> 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
:>
:> 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 creat
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 12:41:17PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, John Robert LoVerso wrote:
> > Or type "vi /etc/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf.site" and then hit ":N" to split
> > the screen into two sessions, one in /etc/rc.conf and one in
> > /etc/rc.conf.site.
> > Use ^W to toggle betw
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 09:13:27AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > Hmmm, I think your answer is a bit political, or am I really the
> > only person, who hacks rc.conf.site with vi and has to browse through
> > both files at the same time and is a bit annoyed by having to compare
> > every singl
>
> 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.
I haven't used it yet, but I definately think the idea is an
improvement. I hate trying to update /etc after an upgrade.. if it's
been a while, or it's between major versions, it can take a very
significant amount of time. Anything that moves local changes to a
seperate file is a blessing.
Also,
This looks like a good addition to rc.conf(5). A description of what
the inventor(s) intended when adding rc.conf.site and rc.conf.local to
the system.
> Typically I use 'sysinstall' exactly once in one machine's lifetime.
> My old method of dealing with 'rc.conf' and 'rc.conf.local' was:
> =
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 06:05:15PM +0100, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> > Sorry to say this, but you really don't understand it. :)
sorry Andreas, ... I have to second this ;)
> > > When we had one central rc.conf file it was fun to browse through
> > > it and having all supported knobs visible at a
On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, John Robert LoVerso wrote:
> > No I have to use two vi sessions (or one ,more' and one ,vi' session)
> > in two different (!) windows (especially after a new installation,
>
> Or type "vi /etc/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf.site" and then hit ":N" to split
> the screen into two sessions
> No I have to use two vi sessions (or one ,more' and one ,vi' session)
> in two different (!) windows (especially after a new installation,
Or type "vi /etc/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf.site" and then hit ":N" to split
the screen into two sessions, one in /etc/rc.conf and one in /etc/rc.conf.site.
Use ^W
> Hmmm, I think your answer is a bit political, or am I really the
> only person, who hacks rc.conf.site with vi and has to browse through
> both files at the same time and is a bit annoyed by having to compare
> every single line and then to add the knob in rc.conf.site ?!
I still cannot see any
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 08:29:57AM -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> > Sorry to say this, but after having to use rc.conf.site as it is now
> > I really kind of 'hate' it.
>
> Sorry to say this, but you really don't understand it. :)
What ? ;-) Don't tell me that ;-)
> > When we had one cent
> Sorry to say this, but after having to use rc.conf.site as it is now
> I really kind of 'hate' it.
Sorry to say this, but you really don't understand it. :)
> When we had one central rc.conf file it was fun to browse through
> it and having all supported knobs visible at a glance.
And you stil
Hi !
Sorry to say this, but after having to use rc.conf.site as it is now
I really kind of 'hate' it.
When we had one central rc.conf file it was fun to browse through
it and having all supported knobs visible at a glance.
No I have to use two vi sessions (or one ,more' and one ,vi' session)
in
30 matches
Mail list logo
