Subject: re: CVS commit: basesrc/etc/rc.conf.d
To: Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: matthew green <email@example.com>
Date: 04/18/2002 20:18:33
In some email I received from Perry E. Metzger, sie wrote:
> Darren Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > Err, rc.conf.d is not for placing files like this. These things should
> > > be in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. rc.conf.d is for the end-user.
> > Amusing. You've contradicted yourself in two separate emails in two
> > separate forums (or at least that's the impression I get).
> I don't think Jason's self-contradictions are germane.
> The rc.conf.d directory is indeed supposed to be empty and reserved
> for the user. There were no files in it before you did this, and I'd
> suggest that you back the change out.
Actually, there wasn't even a directory there to start with, so it
wasn't just empty but non-existant.
this is false. the directory is *definately* created. i've used
it on multiple occasions to set "command=..." for this instance.
In an echo of comments elsewhere, how on earth is any user meant to
know that this avenue is open to them given this ?
lack of documentation. it should be fixed.
I'm going to back it out but not for any reason any of you have cited
and not least because anyone on icb thought it would be the right thing
to do when I suggested it (they just continued to whinge) but out of
respect that 1.6 should be not very far away and this sort of change
is really quite stupid in light of an imminent release. Although it
did seem like a good idea at the time but so did blowing up Israel.
luke has backed it out.
Luke was going to send me his thoughts on this but he's neglected to do
so. I'll have to remember to disregard what he says in future about
what NetBSD supports (you can blame him for putting the seed of this
in my mind by mentioning NetBSD supported this earlier in the week,
which I took as an indication that it was ok for NetBSD to use. Stupid
me for trusting heresay and a few lines of shell code.)
you can blame yourself for not talking to anyone about this
first. you can blame yourself for thinking you understand what
rc.conf.d is for. you can blame yourself for assuming "support"
means "provide defaults". most of all, don't blame luke for
talking to you, maybe he'll stop altogether. ;-)
darren, you just stomped all over this and you show no sign of
listening to what other people say. you continually ignore it
when people say "rc.conf.d is completely for the end user" and
"put this into defaults/rc.conf". the features you added are
now gone but you're more than welcome to add them, given you use
_lower case_ variables, to defaults/rc.conf.
rc.conf.d is NOT for netbsd to touch.
the only valid point you seem to have here is that it's not very