>Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 12:48:13 -0800
>From: Mike Smith <m...@smith.net.au>

>> What do you think ? Or what are your experiences ?

>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 confess that I experienced what sure felt like a POLA violation when I
set up a system with a recent 3.0-SNAP (from about 01 February or so):
Since it was on a scratch box, I did a fresh install.  But I wanted to
see what it would take to make the box "play nice" on our internal
Engineering network.

So immediately after sysinstall finished, and I told the system to boot
single-user (since sysinstall doesn't seem to provide a way to specify
the NIS domain name), and:

        fsck -p
        mount -a
        cd
        vi .cshrc [change EDITOR from "ee" to "vi"]
        csh
        cd /etc
        mkdir /RCS
        ci -u sendmail.cf rc.conf fstab printcap group inetd.conf
        [hand-enter descriptions of each file]
        co -l !:3*
        vi !:2*
        [hand-enter the NIS domain.  Also change the amd_map_program &
        amd_flags; those are easier to change w/ a normal editor.  Do
        reality check on everything else in rc.conf.]
        [Add MFS-mounted /tmp.]
        [Add a couple of networked printers.]
        [Add the NIS "magic cookie" to /etc/group.]
        [Add the amanda client-side entry.]
        ci -u !*
        [hand-enter brief descriptions of the above]
        vipw [Add NIS "magic cookie" to passwd.]
        reboot

intending to come up multi-user.  (Note that I had deliberately not
changed sendmail.cf yet; that comes later.)

Machine comes up... amd says "no work to do--quitting".  Huh?  I try
logging in (as "dhw"); no go.  ??!?  Login as root; works fine.
"ls -F ~dhw/" -- no such user.  Foo.  "domainname"... null.  :-(
"grep nis /etc/rc.conf" -- yeah; the domain name is set.  ??!??!

*Then* my manager points out rc.conf.site.

:-(

So I check *that* file in & out, edit it, check it back in, come up
multi-user, and things are *much* happier.  So then I'm able to

        cd /etc
        cp -p /usr/local/share/sendmail/cf-8.9.2/cf/dhw.cf sendmail.cf
        ci -u !$
        kill `head -1 /var/run/sendmail.pid` && tail -f /var/log/maillog

OK so far....  (Then all I needed to do was un-tar a bunch of the a.out
libraries (as well as /usr/libexec/ld.so) where they can be found.)

*Then* I was able to login....


Later, on another machine (on an engineer's desk), I've upgraded the box
to that SNAP.  And now he's re-booted, and can't login.  I login as
root, and we happen to look at the results of

        rcsdiff -u /etc/rc.conf.site

??!?  All kinds of changes....  Then he says he was doing some things
with sysinstall.  :-(  Fine; "co /etc/rc.conf.site" restores it back
again.  Re-boot, and he can login again....  Seems that whatever he did
completely trashed thinsg like the NIS domain name....


OK; this note is way too long already....  But it does seem to me that
there's a bit of a POLA violation, if nothing else, in the naming.

You see, when I got here, I inherited a network where /usr/local was
NFS-exported from a box (that is now running 2.2.6-R).  And this seems
to be rather at odds with the expectation of the "ports" system.  Now,
since this has been my first experience with FreeBSD, I didn't know any
better... and I had no idea how much hassle this usage of /usr/local
would be in an environment where such a "ports" system is used.
Further, having /usr/local be "site-local" vs. "machine-local" isn't all
that unusual in the environments I've used and administered before
(mostly Suns).

But if /usr/local is expected to be machine-specific, it seems to me
that what sysinstall messes with should also be machine-specific, and
the names should be of a similar pattern.

At the same time, there is value in having a site-specific configuration
file (just as there is value in having some site-wide files, some of
which may well be executables).  I would expect, moreover, that the
machine-specific information would override the site-specific
information.

I hope that was of *some* use (or interest, at least),
david
-- 
David Wolfskill         UNIX System Administrator
d...@whistle.com                voice: (650) 577-7158   pager: (650) 371-4621

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to