OK, so it seems everyone's found something to like and dislike about
the new scheme. In that regard, it seems pretty much equivalent to
the previous layout when that was first introduced. :)
However, incremental refinement for this stuff has always been the
order of the day, so in that spirit, he
On 22-Mar-99 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> OK, so it seems everyone's found something to like and dislike about
> the new scheme. In that regard, it seems pretty much equivalent to
> the previous layout when that was first introduced. :)
If it makes you feel any better, I kind of like the new system
The problem with putting code in /etc/defaults/rc.conf is that
simplistic parsers which read it as ``var = value # optional comment''
get very confused by for loops or function declarations or what have
you. It also makes it more difficult to read in /etc/{*,.}rc.conf
from an admin program, permut
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
> Index: netstart
> ===
> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/etc/netstart,v
> retrieving revision 1.53
> diff -u -u -r1.53 netstart
> --- netstart 1999/02/10 18:08:16 1.53
> +++ netstart 1999/0
Forget about code in rc.conf. Put the logic in the the scripts. Or,
better, put the logic in rc.suck (well, find a better name... :),
and . /etc/rc.suck instead.
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
> OK, so it seems everyone's found something to like and dislike about
> the new scheme. In that regard,
On 22-Mar-99 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> There is a problem with this approach.
>
> /etc/defaults/rc.conf defines ${rc_conf_files}
> However, I have no chance to override it before it is used.
>
> When I wrote my comment about "code" in rc.conf, I was
> actually thinking about /etc/defaults/rc.
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 22-Mar-99 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > There is a problem with this approach.
> >
> > /etc/defaults/rc.conf defines ${rc_conf_files}
> > However, I have no chance to override it before it is used.
> >
> > However, I fear that you need a bit more
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> When I wrote my comment about "code" in rc.conf, I was
> actually thinking about /etc/defaults/rc.conf and the
> recursion loop that that creates when someone copies it to
> /etc/rc.conf.
>
> You can, and IMHO should, make the defaults strictly variables.
>
> Howev
On 22-Mar-99 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22-Mar-99 Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>> > There is a problem with this approach.
>> >
>> > /etc/defaults/rc.conf defines ${rc_conf_files}
>> > However, I have no chance to override it before it is used
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> However, the original definition has already been used once the /etc/rc.conf
> has been read. Unless you are going to call the for loop twice, once after
> /etc/defaults/rc.conf to include /etc/rc.conf and once after /etc/rc.conf to
> include the extra stuff you define, yo
On 22-Mar-99 Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> However, the original definition has already been used once the /etc/rc.conf
>> has been read. Unless you are going to call the for loop twice, once after
>> /etc/defaults/rc.conf to include /etc/rc.conf and once after /etc/rc.conf
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, John Baldwin wrote:
> > An alternate, and perhaps cleaner approach would be to always suck in
> > /etc/defaults/rc.conf and /etc/rc.conf. Then suck in those files specified
> > in ${additional_rc_conf_files}.
>
> That would work, but then we have two includes everywhere that
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> >#!/bin/sh
> > for file in $1
> > do
> >. $file
> >if [ "${rc_conf_files}X" != "$*X" ] then
> > . $0 "${rc_conf_files}"
> >fi
> > done
>
> I would move the if-statemeount outside the for loop. Say config file a
> defines
> rc_conf_files="b c", and config
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Wackerbarth [mailto:r...@dataplex.net]
> Sent: 22 March 1999 10:23
> To: John Baldwin
> Cc: curr...@freebsd.org; Jordan K. Hubbard
> Subject: Re: /etc/rc.conf, take 46!
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, John Baldwin wrote:
>
Now that sounz like a simple solution.:)) Paul...
> > Unless someone comes up with a scheme that tracks set membership and
> > allows us to add to that set, I think that we should stick to
> > the "simple"
> > approach.
> >
> > /etc/defaults/rc.conf defines ${rc_conf_files} to be "/etc/rc.conf"
>
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:06:41 PST, "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
> if [ -f /etc/defaults/rc.conf ]; then
> . /etc/defaults/rc.conf
> -elif [ -f /etc/rc.conf ]; then
> - . /etc/rc.conf
> + for i in ${rc_conf_files}; do
> + if [ -f $i ]; then
> + . $i
> +
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:49:52 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> What's the idea behind ignoring rc_conf_files just because we can't find
> /etc/defaults/rc.conf?
Please pretend I never said that.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current"
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 12:49:52PM +0200, a little birdie told me
that Sheldon Hearn remarked
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:06:41 PST, "Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
> > if [ -f /etc/defaults/rc.conf ]; then
> > . /etc/defaults/rc.conf
> > -elif [ -f /etc/rc.conf ]; then
> > - . /etc/rc.conf
> > +
.org
Date: Monday, March 22, 1999 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: /etc/rc.conf, take 46!
>Now that sounz like a simple solution.:)) Paul...
>> >
>> > An alternate, and perhaps cleaner approach would be to always suck in
>> > /etc/defaults/rc.conf and /etc/rc.conf. Then su
19 matches
Mail list logo
