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

[Brooks Davis]

On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 12:18:17AM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > Brooks Davis wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> >>> Brooks Davis wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> >>>>> Brooks Davis wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >>>>>>> Brooks Davis wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>> How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree
> >>>>>>> with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and
> >>>>>>> consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry
> >>>>>>> over usability.
> >>>>>> That would be fine.  I don't really care as long as it's deprecated.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FWIW, only users who don't update /etc/defaults/rc.conf or who manually
> >>>>>> set gif_interfaces="NO" would be effected so the size of the set of
> >>>>>> effected users is probalby close to epilon and even all that will happen
> >>>>>> is cloning an extra interface and then not configuring it so it should
> >>>>>> be basicly harmless to just remove direct support for it.
> >>>>> Fine with me as well. Should we make it a warning on RELENG_6 and an
> >>>>> error on HEAD, or a warning on both. The former being be what I was
> >>>>> planning to do, ie. remove support for "NO" in HEAD but issue a message
> >>>>> saying semantics have changed. The latter would mean identical code in
> >>>>> both HEAD and RELENG_6 (so "NO"-compatibility in both branches), but
> >>>>> we'd need a reminder to remove this "NO"-support in HEAD once RELENG_7
> >>>>> is branched.
> >>>> I'd say a warning in both.
> >>> Re-reading Doug's message, he's probably thinking the same thing, but
> >>> this is for gif_interfaces only, right?
> >> That's what I'd do.  There's no reason to introduce support for an
> >> instantly deprecated feature in a new variable, particularly since
> >> gif_interfaces is the odd one out.
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> Here's the updated network.subr diff:
> 
> http://people.freebsd.org/~flz/local/netsubr.diff

Looks good to me.

-- Brooks