In message <7139.921644806@eterna.com.au>matthew green writes
>jonathan, please do not do this.

Of course not, not unles there's some consensus.

>all the configuration can be placed into /etc/rc.conf currently,
>including hostname, router gateway, NIS domain, interface addresses
>and aliases, etc.  *everything*.

That's a bloody stoopid idea. Suppose i want to share /etc/rc and
/etc/rc.conf on a bunch of otherwise-identical machines in a lab.
Forcing me to put the host-specific info (like hostname) into
/etc/rc.conf means I cant do that.


>/etc/{myname,mygate,domainname} are all deprecated.

Errr, says who?


>i also quite dislike the name "rc.if" and prefer prefer "netstart"
>to that (though, if it was to be renamed, which is something i have
>considered proposing for a long time, i feel it should be rc.net).

It's _not_ an rc for ``the network'', since it doesn't include
services; just connectivity.


>it does more than simply bring up interfaces.  it sets routes,
>turns on ipfilter, aliases, sets NIS domain, and starts pppd(s).

ipfilter is soemthing that has to be turned on as part of interface
setup (ie.., before interfaces come up).  Aliases are merely aliases
for interfaces.  Default routing is (again) part of basic connectivity.
PPP connectivity is merely an unusual kind of interface.


>to me, that is "starting the network".  once these are done, my
>network is ready to use (ie, i can start daemons etc).

I think you have a strange idea of what `the network' is, then:).  To
me, rc.net sounds like a good name for somethign which brings up
interfaces (ie establishing connectivity) and also starts network
services.

At least we seem to agree that `netstart' is not a good name....