conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf

[Brooks Davis]

The following reply was made to PR conf/104884; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Brooks Davis <brooks at freebsd.org>
To: Florent Thoumie <flz at freebsd.org>
Cc: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork at freebsd.org>, dougb at freebsd.org,
        freebsd-bugs at freebsd.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit at freebsd.org,
        freebsd-rc at freebsd.org
Subject: Re: conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 10:36:46 -0600

 On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 04:14:50PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
 > Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
 > > On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:10:18 GMT
 > > FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org wrote:
 > >> Thank you very much for your problem report.
 > >> It has the internal identification `conf/104884'.
 > >> The individual assigned to look at your
 > >> report is: freebsd-bugs. 
 > >> You can access the state of your problem report at any time
 > >> via this link:
 > >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=104884
 > >>> Category:       conf
 > >>> Responsible:    freebsd-bugs
 > >>> Synopsis:       Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf
 > >>> Arrival-Date:   Sat Oct 28 16:10:18 GMT 2006
 > > 
 > > 	I chased HEAD.  Please see following patch.
 > > 	Anyone, please handle this PR?
 > > 	And I'll make a patch for 6-stable.
 > > 
 > 
 > I've made my comments on this. Maybe someone else should review it?
 
 It seems basicly fine and should be useful.  (At least until someone
 finally shoots the netgraph part of ng_fec in the head.)  I'd like to
 see "" be the offical way to not configure any fec interfaces. gif_up's
 use of NO is a mistake (IMO).  It would be OK to allow "NO" as an
 undocumented synanim for "".
 
 -- Brooks