Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote in <501af66a.8020...@freebsd.org>:
do> On 8/2/2012 2:25 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
do> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Hiroki Sato <h...@freebsd.org> wrote:
do> >
do> >> Just curious, why ip6addrctl_enable=NO is not enough here?
do>
do> Because the behavior of the script for =NO is to prefer v4.
No, when ip6addrctl_enable=NO the rc.d/ip6addtctl script will be
simply ignored. No rule will be installed in that case.
do> >> I would
do> >> like to eliminate yes/no/none keywords in $ip6addrctl_policy because
do> >> such keywords are vague. If we need the empty rule for some reason,
do> >> "empty" would be a better name for the policy, I think.
do>
do> Personally I think that the established meanings of "yes" and "no" are
do> well understood, but I wouldn't object to emitting a warning for them to
do> help the user make a more explicit selection.
I do not think ip6addrctl_policy={yes|no} is meaningful.
do> While we're at it, the way that the current script replicates the test
do> for checkyesno in case is bogus, and should be changed. I had fixed this
do> in the change set that you(hrs) backed out. To stick with the structure
do> of the current script, something like this would work:
do>
do> http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/ip6addrctl.diff
do>
do> That also brings in the warning described above.
I think additional warnings are not needed because a warning will be
displayed when ipv6_prefer={yes|no} is defined. I have no objection
to use checkyesno() itself to check if the variable is defined as yes
or no.
-- Hiroki
pgpcuiPWo8km1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
