Paul Fardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types:
>> When the rc.conf file includes
>> it's right to expect that the system will operate like a system that does
>> have foo installed.
On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 04:43 AM, Mike Meyer wrote:
> So you think that if I install a syslog from ports that's started via
> /usr/local/etc/rc.d/syslogd.sh, "syslog_enable=NO" in /etc/rc.conf
> should disable it? For that matter, if I set ipfilter_enable="YES" and
> firewall_enable="NO", should the system enable ipfilter or not, as
> there are two contradictory things.
These aren't similar situations.
Your syslog example is essentially an issue of scope or name space
and not the meaning "enable" or of "no". It's my understanding
that the values in /etc/rc.conf apply to the FreeBSD core and not
to any version that someone might install to override the core
version. The configuration for an package that sits in /usr/local
should be found in /usr/local/etc. I'd be disappointed to see
packages that don't follow such a policy.
There are many examples in rc.conf similar to your suggested
These examples, _and_yours_, are examples that suggest that
/etc/rc.conf has a fundamental principle that
is supreme. One can set up all the requisite parameters (e.g. you
can create sendmail.cf, named.conf, tune inetd.conf, compile psm
into the kernel or install any of various screen savers), yet one
can still set an appropriate variable
which will not enable the feature.
> Not enabling something is *not* the same thing as disabling it.
But I think that the intent in /etc/rc.conf is that enable="NO"
_is_ the same thing as disabling it. You might say "If that were
the intent, they'd have used _______." What word should we use
to indicate the absolute YES or NO that some of us believe
should be the simple correct interpretation?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message