For Review: Latest update to rcorder patch

[Doug Barton]

Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 12:56:55AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:

Thanks for the review on the man page stuff.

>>> OK.  I might make rcconf.sh into a no-op that provides rcconf in the
>>> first commit and remove it for real in a day or so to make it easier to
>>> debug any inadvertent issues that result from increasing the number of
>>> scripts with no dependencies.
>> Yeah, not only is this a factor, but I also failed to take into account 
>> another critical element. rcorder needs at least one script without any 
>> REQUIRE lines to know where to start. Right now that's rcconf.sh by 
>> design, but I think we need to replace that, rather than just delete 
>> rcconf.sh. This is one of the few times when I think a dummy dependency 
>> would be useful. I propose that I add a dummy dependency called START, and 
>> change everything that currently depends on rcconf to depend on START 
>> instead. Sound good?
> 
> I'm not sure you actually need a dummy.  NetBSD just lets early things
> have no REQUIRE lines (for instance cdd only contains "PROVIDE:
> disks").  There's no requirement that the tree have a single top.

Hrrrm ... ok. I removed rcconf.sh and all it's REQUIRE lines, and nothing 
changed in the order. David O'Brien added a BEFORE: initrandom to dumpon so 
that it would be easier to debug panics related to it, and I don't see any 
reason to change that, so I think we're set there.

>> BTW, I noticed that there are several scripts that have no REQUIRE or 
>> nostart. Should those be updated? They are: ccd, gbde, mixer, and 
>> securelevel.
> 
> mixer is broken and should REQUIRE on cleanvar.  The ccd script probably
> doesn't depend on anything but the obsolete rcconf.sh (which it
> currently gets from initrandom's BEFORE: disks), but gbde may depend on
> initrandom (I haven't read the code).  I might just let initrandom take
> the top slot. securelevel is just plain wrong in the current setup.  If
> it's going to do any good, it needs to come much earlier (NetBSD has it
> BEFORE: DAEMON which makes sense if it's supposed to secure your system
> from bad guys.)  Right now it's in the noise at the end of the list due
> to a whole lot of IMO rather bogus BEFORE: securelevel entries.

Ok. Changing mixer is an easy call (and ironically pushes it further down 
the order), but I'm not comfortable changing the others. Things work as they 
are, even if it is by accident, and I don't want to be the one who breaks it. :)

Doug


-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection