On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 12:48:13PM -0800, Mike Smith wrote: > > I hate it unreservedly. If we need a source of seeded default values, > we should have rc.conf.default, uncommented, read-only. rc.conf is > where people expect to make their changes, and it is immensely bogus to > have sysinstall creating rc.conf.site which is quietly included *after* > everything in rc.conf (so that when someone changes rc.conf, the change > is overridden).
I hate to be an AOL'er, but I would like to voice agreement with Mike. It seems we are coming very close to violating POLA and a web of stacking. On Sun, Feb 07, 1999, John Fieber wrote: > > As for for all the debate on the name, if it is supposed to be an > untouchable file, the name of rc.conf has GOT to change. IF things are too far along to break from the current path, John is very right that the name has to change. Remember, we changed the name from /etc/sysconfig to /etc/rc.conf due to overwhelming requests from sysadmins for us to be similarly named with other Unixes. People expect to edit /etc/rc.conf. -- -- David (obr...@nuxi.com -or- obr...@freebsd.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
