On 1111T2115, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Edward Tomasz Napierała <tr...@freebsd.org> (from Sun, 10 Nov > 2019 20:25:04 +0000): > > > On 1110T1147, Conrad Meyer wrote: > > >> I am on board with making this stuff more “batteries included” and usable > >> by default, but just echoing the request for configurable knobs (I don’t > >> care about the defaults). > > > > My point is... well, there are two. First is, it's configurable already: > > you can comment out parts of the rc script you don't want, or you can not > > We want to have the system rc scripts "no touch" scripts, don't we?
I don't quite agree, but I'm not going to fight for it. > > set linux_enable in the first place and do things it would otherwise do > > for you by in the usual manner - add the modules to loader.conf, add a > > line to sysctl.conf etc. The script simply provides a shortcut to match > > what 90% of users want. > > I agree. > > > Second, in order to implement something properly, I need to understand > > how it's going to be used. I guess I worded it quite badly in the > > previous mail; it's wasn't supposed to sound like "Can you give me some > > use case because I think you're wrong", but rather a "Can you give me > > some use case, because without it I have no idea how to design it to > > fit it". > > What about a config variable which enables or disables the mounts? > That way we don't have to modify the rc script to get back to the old > behavior in cases were we need it. Okay, this is easy to do; see https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22320. _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
