Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:57, Mikkel Bang wrote: > I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags="" > doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start > named. I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Seriously, tho: is "uninformed beginners would think it should be like X" how you think highly sophisticated technical projects should be designed? Just saying. Ben :wq
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:22:38AM -0400, Simon Perreault wrote: > Le 2012-08-29 09:57, Mikkel Bang a ?crit : > >If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched > >this baby up a long time ago. > > Sadly, a good argument against moving to Git. > > Simon > Whatcha 'git agit gitting over to Git? Ya git sumthin gitty in ur git-along? :)
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
On 2012 Aug 29 (Wed) at 15:57:09 +0200 (+0200), Mikkel Bang wrote: :If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched :this baby up a long time ago. 1) Here's a nickle, go learn to use cvs. 2) We'd reject the patch anyways. -- Stop searching. Happiness is right next to you.
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Mikkel Bang wrote: > I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags="" > doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start > named. > > The way it is right now seems more like monkey patching from the days > before OpenBSD became popular. I acknowledge the whole "it's been like > this for ages", but it's 2012 - it's time to make some power moves. > > If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched > this baby up a long time ago. > I believe you can still submit patches even if it's not on Git... And I believe if OpenBSD was at GitHub, you will still need approvals before it can be part of the main tree. So what's stopping you...?
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
Le 2012-08-29 09:57, Mikkel Bang a écrit : If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched this baby up a long time ago. Sadly, a good argument against moving to Git. Simon
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
Mikkel Bang wrote: >I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags="" >doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start >named. >The way it is right now seems more like monkey patching from the days >before OpenBSD became popular. I acknowledge the whole "it's been like >this for ages", but it's 2012 - it's time to make some power moves. >If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched >this baby up a long time ago. >Mikkel named_flags="NO" gives ONE way of NOT starting named. Why should there only be ONE way to start named? "Power Moves" is to limit named to NO command line parameters???
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
I'm just thinking that from a layman's perspective named_flags="" doesn't make as much sense as named=YES if all you want to do is start named. The way it is right now seems more like monkey patching from the days before OpenBSD became popular. I acknowledge the whole "it's been like this for ages", but it's 2012 - it's time to make some power moves. If OpenBSD was on Git / at GitHub, youngins like me would have patched this baby up a long time ago. Mikkel 2012/8/29 Stuart Henderson : > On 2012-08-25, Mikkel Bang wrote: >> Hello! >> >> Is there a way to make my rc.conf.local more sensible and consistent, i.e. >> not >> >> pf=YES >> sshd="" >> named_flags="" >> >> but rather >> >> pf=YES >> sshd=YES >> named=YES? > > How about something like this? > > # system options > pf=YES > > # daemons > sshd_flags="" > named_flags=""
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
On 2012-08-25, Mikkel Bang wrote: > Hello! > > Is there a way to make my rc.conf.local more sensible and consistent, i.e. not > > pf=YES > sshd="" > named_flags="" > > but rather > > pf=YES > sshd=YES > named=YES? How about something like this? # system options pf=YES # daemons sshd_flags="" named_flags=""
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
> > (For sake of the argument: pfctl has options, maybe they should be a > > rc.conf option for it?) > > pfctl is not a daemon per se, as opposed to e.g. smtpd or httpd. > > As far as enabling pf and loading the ruleset, only a subset of the > pfctl flags are of interest. > > Therefore, there is $pf_rules, which is passed with -f to pfctl. Not > sure what other options would be of use. > > There are a few other special cases, such as $spamd_black, which could > just as well have been configured in $spamd_flags, if it wasn't also > used to determine whether we should also start spamlogd or not. The support for options to pfctl was removed intentionally. If you want to control what pf is doing, do it in the config file. We removed pfctl options to force that. It is good practice that pf works the same if you forget to pass stupid options to it.
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
On 08/25/12 21:08, Robert wrote: On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:55:00 +0200 Mikkel Bang wrote: Hello! Is there a way to make my rc.conf.local more sensible and consistent, i.e. not pf=YES sshd="" named_flags="" but rather pf=YES sshd=YES named=YES? You may still want to be able to pass special parameters to those. Thanks! Mikkel pf doesn't have options for start up, but sshd and named have. The current syntax is perfectly fine. (For sake of the argument: pfctl has options, maybe they should be a rc.conf option for it?) pfctl is not a daemon per se, as opposed to e.g. smtpd or httpd. As far as enabling pf and loading the ruleset, only a subset of the pfctl flags are of interest. Therefore, there is $pf_rules, which is passed with -f to pfctl. Not sure what other options would be of use. There are a few other special cases, such as $spamd_black, which could just as well have been configured in $spamd_flags, if it wasn't also used to determine whether we should also start spamlogd or not. kind regards, Robert
Re: More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:55:00 +0200 Mikkel Bang wrote: > Hello! > > Is there a way to make my rc.conf.local more sensible and consistent, i.e. not > > pf=YES > sshd="" > named_flags="" > > but rather > > pf=YES > sshd=YES > named=YES? > > Thanks! > > Mikkel > pf doesn't have options for start up, but sshd and named have. The current syntax is perfectly fine. (For sake of the argument: pfctl has options, maybe they should be a rc.conf option for it?) kind regards, Robert
More sensible and consistent rc.conf.local
Hello! Is there a way to make my rc.conf.local more sensible and consistent, i.e. not pf=YES sshd="" named_flags="" but rather pf=YES sshd=YES named=YES? Thanks! Mikkel
