Re: Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:50 AM, RW wrote: > Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation. rc.d/iovctl isn't actually > doing anything by default because of iovctl_files="". > > There is an analogy with rc.d/sysctl which runs by default, with a > an empty sysctl.conf

Re: Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

tly > >> enabled by default. That seems like a trivial omission: > >> > >> Index: etc/defaults/rc.conf > >> =============== > >> --- etc/defaults/rc.conf (revision 302482) > >> +++ etc/defaults/rc.conf

Re: Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:10:43 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote: > I'm not religious about it being turned off per se. More that it > should have a clearly defined on/off state shown in the defaults. > > I went for 'off' following the general principle that rc.conf items > should mostly be off by

Re: Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

r I did notice that the new iovctl rc script is apparently > >> enabled by default. That seems like a trivial omission: > >> > >> Index: etc/defaults/rc.conf > >> =============== > >> --- etc/defaults/r

Re: Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

ult. That seems like a trivial omission: >> >> Index: etc/defaults/rc.conf >> =========== >> --- etc/defaults/rc.conf (revision 302482) >> +++ etc/defaults/rc.conf (working copy) >> @@ -695,6 +695,

Re: Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

ult. That seems like a trivial omission: >> >> Index: etc/defaults/rc.conf >> =========== >> --- etc/defaults/rc.conf (revision 302482) >> +++ etc/defaults/rc.conf (working copy) >> @@ -695,6 +695,

Re: Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

x: etc/defaults/rc.conf > ======= > --- etc/defaults/rc.conf (revision 302482) > +++ etc/defaults/rc.conf (working copy) > @@ -695,6 +695,7 @@ > rctl_enable="YES"# Load rctl(8) rules on boot

Oversight in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

I just upgraded my main machine to 11-STABLE. Things are mostly working fine -- however I did notice that the new iovctl rc script is apparently enabled by default. That seems like a trivial omission: Index: etc/defaults/rc.conf

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Erwin Lansing wrote: Sorry about the delay, but I did finally update all three dns/bind9* ports today. Thanks a lot for your work on this very important port. I have dropped the complicated chroot, and related symlinking, logic from the default rc script as I don't

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

From: Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:13:23 +0100 Sorry about the delay, but I did finally update all three dns/bind9* ports today. I have dropped the complicated chroot, and related

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote: On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:59:15PM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote: E E Erwin, can you please handle that? E E Things are much worse that this, the ports are completely written under the assumption that there is a

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:59 PM, George Kontostanos gkontos.m...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Erwin Lansing er...@freebsd.org wrote: On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:59:15PM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote: E E Erwin, can you please handle that? E E Things are much worse

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:59:15PM +0100, Erwin Lansing wrote: E E Erwin, can you please handle that? E E Things are much worse that this, the ports are completely written under the assumption that there is a Bind in base, which of course would already break with WITHOUT_BIND

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

in source tree. E G Ö I think this file was forgotten to be removed. E G Ö E G Ö And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults/rc.conf E G file. E G E G Please review attached file that removes named from /etc. E G E G It would be great if the port would learn

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:22:03PM +0200, George Kontostanos wrote: G IMO, we should proceed with removal of remnants of bind in src. In the G worst case, G if you can't handle it this week, the situation will be the following: G G 1) 8.x, 9.x users are okay G 2) 10+.x users w/o bind are

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Am 06.11.2013 um 14:59 schrieb Erwin Lansing: Suggestion. An option to install the rc script would solve that problem. If only it was that simple, it would have been done a long time ago. As Gleb points out, the ports are broken by design. The rc script needs a complete rewrite, and

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

script E G Ö still exists. E G Ö and this script depends on /etc/mtree/BIND.chroot.dist file but E G there is E G Ö no such file in source tree. E G Ö I think this file was forgotten to be removed. E G Ö E G Ö And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

/rc.d/named G script G Ö still exists. G Ö and this script depends on /etc/mtree/BIND.chroot.dist file but G there is G Ö no such file in source tree. G Ö I think this file was forgotten to be removed. G Ö G Ö And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults/rc.conf G file. G

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Ö And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults/rc.conf G file. G G Please review attached file that removes named from /etc. G G It would be great if the port would learn to install its own script etc. G in time for that change. (Unless it’s already there, and I’m just

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults/rc.conf E G file. E G E G Please review attached file that removes named from /etc. E G E G It would be great if the port would learn to install its own script etc. E G in time for that change. (Unless it’s already there, and I’m

FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

/defaults/rc.conf file. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

to be removed. Ö Ö And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults/rc.conf file. Please review attached file that removes named from /etc. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. Index: etc/defaults/periodic.conf === --- etc/defaults

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

but there is Ö no such file in source tree. Ö I think this file was forgotten to be removed. Ö Ö And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults/rc.conf file. Please review attached file that removes named from /etc. It would be great if the port would learn to install its own script etc

Re: FreeBSD 10 Beta2 /etc/rc.d/named script and /etc/defaults/rc.conf

. Ö and this script depends on /etc/mtree/BIND.chroot.dist file but there is Ö no such file in source tree. Ö I think this file was forgotten to be removed. Ö Ö And also, named_* definitions still exists in /etc/defaults/rc.conf file. Please review attached file that removes named

Re: cvs commit: src/etc crontab rc src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/mtree BSD.root.dist src/libexec Makefile src/libexec/save-entropy Makefile save-entropy.sh

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maxim Sobolev writes: : I like this idea, but perhaps it would be nice to have more : fine-grained control over when /dev/random is blocking and when : not. Why not to add sysctl to switch between blocking/non-blocking : behaviour (defaulting to non-blocking), so our

Re: cvs commit: src/etc crontab rc src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/mtree BSD.root.dist src/libexec Makefile src/libexec/save-entropy Makefile save-entropy.sh

Warner Losh wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maxim Sobolev writes: : I like this idea, but perhaps it would be nice to have more : fine-grained control over when /dev/random is blocking and when : not. Why not to add sysctl to switch between blocking/non-blocking : behaviour (defaulting

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Point taken, however; does it not allowe the services to be configured by such things as ip, and time period and offer yet better activity logging? With the approriate firewall setup the added layers are worth the trouble. Well enough b/w wasted on this for now. m Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

I've had been considering running xinted for some time now, and thanks to Forest's suggestions I've been able to successfully get it up and running smoothly. I am personnaly left wondering why not just replact inetd altogether with this version? It certainly enhances security a bit. Well these

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:30:02 EST, Mikel wrote: I am personnaly left wondering why not just replact inetd altogether with this version? It certainly enhances security a bit. Well these are just thoughts from the peanut gallery. Too many of those and a mailing list becomes unreadable. :-)

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Wed 2000-11-08 (09:30), Mikel wrote: I've had been considering running xinted for some time now, and thanks to Forest's suggestions I've been able to successfully get it up and running smoothly. I am personnaly left wondering why not just replact inetd altogether with this version? It

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 06:18:38PM -0500, Chris Faulhaber wrote: You forgot the patch(es) to the port(s) this would affect (e.g. xinetd). The affected ports would need their ${PREFIX}/etc/rc.d files removed (otherwise you would start them twice) along with a message letting the installer

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Chris Faulhaber wrote: On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:02:03AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 03:37:01PM -0500, Forrest Aldrich wrote: It would be useful to have back the program specification variable for inetd. Currently we have: inetd_enable="YES"

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 09:30:48AM +, Konstantin Chuguev wrote: If xinetd has a startup script, why don't you just set inetd_enable="NO" and let the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/xinetd.sh start normally? You need to edit no /etc/rc.* files (except for rc.conf.local, obviously). The original idea

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

At 09:30 AM 11/7/2000 +, Konstantin Chuguev wrote: If xinetd has a startup script, why don't you just set inetd_enable="NO" and let the /usr/local/etc/rc.d/xinetd.sh start normally? You need to edit no /etc/rc.* files (except for rc.conf.local, obviously). [ .. ] Sure that would work, but

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 01:02:03AM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On Mon, Nov 06, 2000 at 03:37:01PM -0500, Forrest Aldrich wrote: It would be useful to have back the program specification variable for inetd. Currently we have: inetd_enable="YES" # Run the network daemon

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

- giorgos diff -r -u etc.orig/defaults/rc.conf etc/defaults/rc.conf --- etc.orig/defaults/rc.conf Tue Nov 7 00:59:39 2000 +++ etc/defaults/rc.confTue Nov 7 00:58:40 2000 @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ syslogd_enable="YES" # Run syslog daemon (or NO). syslogd_flags="

/etc/defaults/rc.conf

e of the stock inetd. Where some people choose to use alternative inetd-like programs such as xinetd. We'd do better to have in /etc/defaults/rc.conf: inetd_enable="YES" # Run the network daemon dispatcher (or NO). inetd_program=-"/usr/local/sbin/xinetd" # Loca

Re: conf/17595: Preventing cp /etc/defaults/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf from looping

I took another look at this problem, and before I go forward with more testing I wanted to solicit some comments. The problem is that users who don't read blindly copy /etc/defaults/rc.conf into /etc. Because of the recursive call at the end of /etc/defaults/rc.conf when you copy the file

Re: conf/17595: Preventing cp /etc/defaults/rc.conf /etc/rc.conf from looping

On Mon, Mar 27, 2000, Doug Barton wrote: One solution that was experimented with a while back, and referenced again in PR 17595 was to put a checkpoint variable in /etc/defaults/rc.conf which would prevent it from being recursively sourced. There are two problems with this strategy

Re: syslogd_flags in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Mon, Mar 20, 2000 at 09:45:49AM -0800, Nick Johnson wrote: I'm curious to see if anyone is like-minded with me that syslogd_flags in /etc/defaults/rc.conf should be "-ss" instead of "". I reasoned that it should be, considering: 1. Most people don't direct syslo

syslogd_flags in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

I'm curious to see if anyone is like-minded with me that syslogd_flags in /etc/defaults/rc.conf should be "-ss" instead of "". I reasoned that it should be, considering: 1. Most people don't direct syslogs at other machines in my experience. 2. Someone could conce

Re: syslogd_flags in /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Nick Johnson wrote: I'm curious to see if anyone is like-minded with me that syslogd_flags in /etc/defaults/rc.conf should be "-ss" instead of "". I reasoned that it should be, considering: 1. Most people don't direct syslogs at other machines in my experience.

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Wed, Feb 17, 1999 at 06:15:06PM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: On Tuesday, 16 February 1999 at 9:24:31 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: If I have a /etc/defaults/rc.conf, then my /etc/rc.conf won't be consulted. Wrong. You need to read just a bit FURTHER into that file before jumping

/etc/defaults/rc.conf

Initially I though /etc/defaults/rc.conf stored the default settings and then we could override some of the settings in /etc/rc.conf, but after a close look at how they are used in /etc/rc*, I am confused: if [ -f /etc/defaults/rc.conf ]; then . /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Initially I though /etc/defaults/rc.conf stored the default settings and then we could override some of the settings in /etc/rc.conf, but after a close look at how they are used in /etc/rc*, I am confused: if [ -f /etc/defaults/rc.conf ]; then . /etc/defaults/rc.conf

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 09:04:11AM -0500, Luoqi Chen wrote: Initially I though /etc/defaults/rc.conf stored the default settings and then we could override some of the settings in /etc/rc.conf, but after a close look at how they are used in /etc/rc*, I am confused: if [ -f /etc

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

If I have a /etc/defaults/rc.conf, then my /etc/rc.conf won't be consulted. Wrong. You need to read just a bit FURTHER into that file before jumping to such conclusions. :-) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message

Re: /etc/defaults/rc.conf

On Tuesday, 16 February 1999 at 9:24:31 -0800, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: If I have a /etc/defaults/rc.conf, then my /etc/rc.conf won't be consulted. Wrong. You need to read just a bit FURTHER into that file before jumping to such conclusions. :-) Been there, done that. Next thing