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: Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org>, Brooks Davis <brooks at FreeBSD.org>,
        Norikatsu Shigemura <nork 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 13:02:21 -0600

 On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:46:51PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
 > 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.
 
 I agree.  It's a list not a Boolean.  There's no reason to poison its
 name space this way.  Also, gif_interfaces is the only *_interfaces
 variable that takes "NO" as a special argument.
 
 The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening.
 I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces
 in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in
 CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable.
 
 -- Brooks