svn commit: r238622 - head/etc/rc.d

[Hiroki Sato]

Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> wrote
  in <501AF66A.8020804 at FreeBSD.org>:

do> On 8/2/2012 2:25 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
do> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Hiroki Sato <hrs at freebsd.org> wrote:
do> >
do> >>  Just curious, why ip6addrctl_enable=NO is not enough here?
do>
do> Because the behavior of the script for =NO is to prefer v4.

 No, when ip6addrctl_enable=NO the rc.d/ip6addtctl script will be
 simply ignored.  No rule will be installed in that case.

do> >>  I would
do> >>  like to eliminate yes/no/none keywords in $ip6addrctl_policy because
do> >>  such keywords are vague.  If we need the empty rule for some reason,
do> >>  "empty" would be a better name for the policy, I think.
do>
do> Personally I think that the established meanings of "yes" and "no" are
do> well understood, but I wouldn't object to emitting a warning for them to
do> help the user make a more explicit selection.

 I do not think ip6addrctl_policy={yes|no} is meaningful.

do> While we're at it, the way that the current script replicates the test
do> for checkyesno in case is bogus, and should be changed. I had fixed this
do> in the change set that you(hrs) backed out. To stick with the structure
do> of the current script, something like this would work:
do>
do> http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/ip6addrctl.diff
do>
do> That also brings in the warning described above.

 I think additional warnings are not needed because a warning will be
 displayed when ipv6_prefer={yes|no} is defined.  I have no objection
 to use checkyesno() itself to check if the variable is defined as yes
 or no.

-- Hiroki
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-all/attachments/20120803/6ed89ef5/attachment.pgp