Subject: Re: Why is ifconfig.ae0 better than hostname.ae0?
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: eric richard haszlakiewicz <email@example.com>
Date: 04/14/1997 01:12:32
> Netstart.conf? Why not rc.conf? And why is it "complicated" to
> do something like:
> ifconfig_le0_1=inet 184.108.40.206 netmask 255.255.255.240 media UTP
> ifconfig_le0_2=inet alias 220.127.116.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
> ifconfig_le0_3=atalk <whatever>
This seems like a fairly workable idea. However, I think there is
something to be said for separating the configuration into several files.
For one it makes it a lot easier to manage it: you can see at a glance
what you've got configured. It seems to make sense, if not to keep the
ifconfig.* files, to at least have a separate conf file for each script
that is run. i.e. rc.conf configures stuff for the rc script, rc.local.conf
for rc.local, netstart.conf for netstart. Makes it easy to see what
goes with what. This appears to be in place for several scripts already.
(rc, rc.lkm, security, daily, monthly, etc...)