Jonathan Stone writes:
> 
> 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.

And what if I want one 'rc.conf' for a laptop at home, and one for the
laptop while "mobile", and one for it when it is at work?  Now I have
to use some fancy script to keep track of all the little bits that relate
to this hostname.  Sure 'dhclient' would probably solve the interface
and resolver bits, but where is the decision about whether to launch a
web server, and proxy server, nfsd, etc, depending on my ip address?
For me this would be via an "overall configuration" file like rc.conf
that is switched depending on where my laptop is.  Little files in /etc
are not the best for this. (neither is switching rc.conf actually)

I would personally like to lose the extra little files that aren't
very intuitive.

Another thing that might be worth considering, is creating a method
of using a specific rc.conf.* depending on what ethernet device was
found, or based on the mac address found.  I have a docking station
and home, and at work.  The only real difference is the mac address
on 'ex0', yet I want a different rc.conf for each machine.  I also
want different /etc/fstab, or /etc/amd/*, etc.

> >/etc/{myname,mygate,domainname} are all deprecated.
> 
> Errr, says who?

Well I always wondered about these names.  Where is 'yourname', or
'yourgate', etc?  What's with the 'my' on the front?  And why doesn't
'domainname' have a 'my' then?

> >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.

ifconfig ex0 inet blah blah blah
ifconfig lo0 127.0.0.1
ftp x.x.x.x
Connected to x.x.x.x.
220 x.x.x.x FTP server ready.

As far as _I_ am concerned the _network_ is up.  My ftp/telnet/web/whatever
client will work.  Perhaps I don't even start "services" on my machine?
IMHO, 'rc.net' is fine for starting network interfaces.  Then there could
be an 'rc.daemon', or 'rc.servers' or whatever.

> 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.

services != network.  I could start services with only a loopback, which
is not exactly "network" either.  Services use the network, but are not
the network.  Admittedly without services of some sort, there is little use
for the network.  

-Andrew
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Gillham                            | This space left blank
gillham@whirlpool.com                     | inadvertently.
I speak for myself, not for my employer.  | Contact the publisher.