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

[Florent Thoumie]

Doug Barton wrote:
> Florent Thoumie wrote:
>> Brooks Davis wrote:
>>> 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 "".
>>
>> Agreed, as said in my previous post.
>>
>> I think we could just set gif_interfaces and fec_interfaces to "" in
>> -CURRENT and add the "NO" compatibility in RELENG_6 when MFC time comes?
>> That would be a candidate for 7.0 RELNOTES.
>>
>> Does it make any sense to you?
> 
> My instinct is to have it the other way around, with "NO" being the
> default, and "" being a synonym. We've trained people that "NO" is the
> way to turn things off with rc, and the one glaring exception to that
> rule (sendmail) has caused an enormous amount of confusion over the years.
> 
> Other than that, I have no objections here.

IMHO, it makes sense to have "NO" as opposed to "YES". In this case,
it's a list. So an empty list would be "", but keeping
"NO"-compatibility for the -STABLE branch ensures POLA. At least that's
how I see it.

-- 
Florent Thoumie
flz at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD Committer

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc/attachments/20070205/41fb1272/signature.pgp