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: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:17:24 -0600

 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