[RFC][Change-Request] Create usefulness in rc.subr etc/rc.conf.d/*.conf namespace.

[Doug Barton]

On 05/09/2011 16:57, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 04:27:54PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:

> Sorry Doug but rc.conf.d is already laid out for the user to use as
> mentioned by rc.conf(5) with a suggested use but unfortunately has quite a
> few side effects that I am not going to bother re-writing about again.

I read what you have written to date, but I don't see anything other 
than "It doesn't work the way I want it to." I just re-read the 
description in rc.conf.5, and I think it's clear, but I wouldn't object 
to suggestions to improve it.

> In reply to your previous email here is one exercise that should point
> out the broken functionality fairly clearly or at least I hope clearly
> enough that you realize how a normal user would look at it.
>
>  From scratch, no rc.conf.

No normal user would do that, so I reject your premise. :)

> Setup a NFS server with lockd, statd, mountd,
> rpcbind using only rc.conf.d/${_name} namespace and then try starting
> these services using service(8) and /etc/rc.d/* files. Then read
> rc.conf(5) and tell me the suggestion for jail makes sense.

The various nfs-related options are a particularly pathological case, no 
one is disputing that. However, for the vast majority of purposes the 
one-name-at-a-time method works fine. And given that most users don't 
need anything even approaching the type of functionality that you're 
proposing, I still don't see a problem.

> If you still disagree after doing this then please by all means eradicate
> rc.conf.d from rc.conf(5) and remove its functionality from rc.subr as it
> is less than adequate for anybody other than a developers natural use.

I hope you'll understand if I politely decline your request.

> I do not quite understand why you take such an opposition against
> something that fixes this broken functionality but yet retains its
> original use.

Gordon has already stated it fairly eloquently, but I'll paraphrase. Too 
much potential for user confusion, for too little benefit. I realize 
that to you this sounds like a simple change, but the problem is that 
when you add knobs, users twist them. So every change to something as 
fundamental as the boot system needs to have really strong justification.


-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/