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 sho
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 agi
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 yo
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 becam
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
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'
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
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=""
na
> > (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 i
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
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 sta
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
12 matches
Mail list logo