> On Feb 25, 2015, at 18:08, Kevin Oberman <rkober...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Garrett Cooper <yaneurab...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> On Feb 25, 2015, at 14:19, Miguel Clara <miguelmcl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> ... >> >> > I noticed this too, but in that case why doesn't it affect all users? (or >> > all the ones using dnscrypt+local_unbound) maybe something changed in >> > "NETWORKING" recently? >> > >> > Hum: >> > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/etc/rc.d/NETWORKING?r1=275299&r2=278704 >> > >> > Interesting, as I am using the most recent version which does not REQUIRE >> > local_unbound >> > >> > I'm even more confused now :| >> > >> > >> > So it has to come after SERVERS but before local_unbound. But NETWORKING >> > depends on local_unbound they are both dependent on NEWORKING which has to >> > be after SERVERS. Can you say fubar! Clearly broken. And this means that >> > removing SERVERS will re-shuffle the order more appropriately. >> > >> > It seems that the behavior of rcorder is not as documented as well as >> > being undefined when circular dependencies occur. The man page says that >> > rcorder aborts when it encounters a circular dependency, but that is not >> > the case. It probably is best that it not die, but that leaves things in >> > an unknown and inconsistant state, which is also a very bad idea. I guess >> > when a circular dependency is encountered, a dichotomy occurs. >> >> Now you know why I’m so curious about all of this stuff. >> >> When I was working on ^/projects/building-blocks, I was able to move most of >> these pieces around by changing REQUIRE: to BEFORE:, but I noticed that it >> changes the rcorder a bit, so I haven’t been super gung ho in implementing >> my change. >> >> I think there are a couple bugs present on 9-STABLE/10-STABLE/11-CURRENT: >> >> - Things go awry if named is removed/not installed. >> - Things go awry if local_unbound is removed (which would have been the case >> if the rc.d script was removed from your system, which existed before my >> changes). >> - Other rc.d scripts not being present might break assumptions. >> >> I need to create dummy providers for certain logical stages (DNS is one of >> them) to solve part of this problem and provide third parties with a >> mechanism that can be depended on (I wish applications were written in a >> more robust manner to fail gracefully and retry instead of failing flat on >> their face, but as I’ve seen at several jobs, getting developers to fail, >> then retry is hard :(…). >> >> Another short-term hack: >> >> Install dummy/no-op providers so the ordering is preserved, then remove the >> hacks after all of the bugs have been shaken out. >> >> Thanks! > > Garret, > > Also undocumented (except in rcorder.c) is that the lack of a provider is not > an error. This effectively makes a list of providers into an OR. So, for name > service the normal list is "named local_unbound unbound" and any will work > for ordering and having none is a no-op, so if you don't run any nameserver > (or kerberos or whatever provider), it is not an issue. As long as rcorder > finds a provider, it will be used to set the order, but the lack of any or > all providers just means that the specified provider is ignored and if a > REQUIRES or BEFORE lists no existing providers, the statement is simply > ignored. > > The real problem is that there is no defined rule for behavior in the event > of a circular dependency and any change to any decision point in the ordering > process may change the way the ordering flips. That is why these things are > such a royal pain to debug. A change in any rc.d script may cause the > ordering of seemingly unrelated scripts to change, perhaps drastically, and > the error messages, while not misleading, is only a starting point in > tracking this down. This means there may be time bombs that break working > ports without their being touched or even re-installed. And the triggering > change my, itself be correct.
Or etc/rc.d/named... PROVIDES: DNS I'm going to post a fix up for this on arch@/rc@ because it needs to be solved in a saner way -- especially for systems that are pedantic about rcorder, like our version at $work. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"