conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf
dougb at FreeBSD.org
Mon Feb 5 19:10:59 UTC 2007
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:
>>>>>> 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
Other than that, I have no objections here.
This .signature sanitized for your protection
More information about the freebsd-rc