Re: Fwd: Re: man netstart(8) OpenBSD-6.8
aye agreed. Another option which we were also looking at it a community wiki as a separate src. So sys admins and devs can upload their own usage examples easily. With the caveat ofc that these are not official examples. If you could do something like a triple pipe ||| or even a "sudo !!!" and it would automatically upload as an example if the command worked that would be quite 21st century. But would be nice if we could alleviate the immense workload and bw from the present devs from having to add 10-20 examples for each command or even flag. My issue, even though I ran ITE, and lived on the CLI even in SunScreen was remembering all of the flags and their positioning. Examples really help on that front. Btw interesting signature Luke not that I particularly agree but nice to see another viewpoint, people seem to love the idea of the pre-universe getting flatulent and producing all of this life, biological programming, and beauty. The Big Bang is such a joke mathematically, just completely impossible, but people love to take sides. And I am NOT starting a religious conversation here! Just thought I would comment on your bravery. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, 27 October 2020 21:48, Luke Call wrote: > > - message from pipus pi...@protonmail.com - > > Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:29:41 + > > From: pipus pi...@protonmail.com > > To: Theo de Raadt dera...@openbsd.org > > Cc: "misc@openbsd.org" misc@openbsd.org > > Subject: Re: man netstart(8) OpenBSD-6.8 > > > > I could explain process class priority configuration until my mind is numb > > but in the end without seeing the commands that would actually be used it > > is really making your life far harder. > > I liked Theo's idea of having a "such as (possibly) x, y, and z, but see > the actual /etc/netstart script for accurate details", as striking a > good balance between being briefly informative with examples, and > more accurate over time. > > On Sunday, 25 October 2020 17:44, Theo de Raadt dera...@openbsd.org wrote: > > > Jason McIntyre j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 10:16:54AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > > > Jason McIntyre j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > > > > whereas /etc/netstart is actually doing: > > > > > > > > > > - configure non-physical: (1) > > > > > aggr trunk svlan vlan carp pppoe > > > > > > > > > > - routing (2) > > > > > > > > > > - rest of non-physical: (3) > > > > > tun tap gif etherip gre egre mobileip pflow wg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we could try to keep this list up to date, but it may be easier to > > > > > just > > > > > generally describe what netstart is doing. > > > > > > > > I think we goes wrong by trying to maintain these as lists, and part of > > > > where this goes wrong is weak definition of the reasons for the > > > > ordering. (Meaning, the developers who tweak netstart to handle the > > > > concerns I'm about to describe, don't tend to think about the manual > > > > page). > > > > The (1) list of non-physical can probably be called "link-layer control > > > > interfaces". Or let's find a name for this. These devices mutate the > > > > presentation of other devices. That's why their configuration needs to > > > > be done before the physical device. > > > > (2) The physical device is then brought up, including IP addressing. The > > > > things in (1) need to be done beforehands, or the physical device is > > > > participating in the wrong layer of network. > > > > the (3) list of non-physical devices are layer-2 or layer-3 and operate > > > > on devices which are already configured with some some sort of > > > > "addressing" configured. > > > > It would be nice to have our networking people come up with nice names > > > > for group (1) and (2); words which succinctly describe the > > > > classification like I've done above. We need to increase understanding > > > > of this order, rather than just abstractly listing names of devices with > > > > complicated behaviours. > > > > Once that is done, I still think it is problematic for us to list all > > > > devices in each catagory: > > > > a) new subsystems will be forgotten > > > > b) the order of instantiation will sometimes be listed wrong -- for some > > > > of these the order is highly significant. > > > > We can try to list as many as possible, but people who want the precise > > > > list (and order) should look in the netstart code. The lists will get > > > > long and wrong. If we find we cannot maintain the lists correctly > > > > because it is duplicated information, man page wording like "such as" > > > > could be used, also something which leads people to consider the script > > > > source as authoritative, ie. have them go read the script > > > > > > ok, here is a start. > > > i have left the description as "non-physical", because i think that is > > > clear. we could easily amend it. ifconfig.8 create
Fwd: Re: man netstart(8) OpenBSD-6.8
>- message from pipus - >Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:29:41 + >From: pipus >To: Theo de Raadt >Cc: "misc@openbsd.org" >Subject: Re: man netstart(8) OpenBSD-6.8 > >I could explain process class priority configuration until my mind is numb but >in the end without seeing the commands that would actually be used it is >really making your life far harder. I liked Theo's idea of having a "such as (possibly) x, y, and z, but see the actual /etc/netstart script for accurate details", as striking a good balance between being briefly informative with examples, and more accurate over time. On Sunday, 25 October 2020 17:44, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Jason McIntyre j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 10:16:54AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > > > Jason McIntyre j...@kerhand.co.uk wrote: > > > > > > > whereas /etc/netstart is actually doing: > > > > > > > > - configure non-physical: (1) > > > > aggr trunk svlan vlan carp pppoe > > > > > > > > - routing (2) > > > > - rest of non-physical: (3) > > > > tun tap gif etherip gre egre mobileip pflow wg > > > > > > > > > > > > we could try to keep this list up to date, but it may be easier to just > > > > generally describe what netstart is doing. > > > > > > I think we goes wrong by trying to maintain these as lists, and part of > > > where this goes wrong is weak definition of the reasons for the > > > ordering. (Meaning, the developers who tweak netstart to handle the > > > concerns I'm about to describe, don't tend to think about the manual > > > page). > > > The (1) list of non-physical can probably be called "link-layer control > > > interfaces". Or let's find a name for this. These devices mutate the > > > presentation of other devices. That's why their configuration needs to > > > be done before the physical device. > > > (2) The physical device is then brought up, including IP addressing. The > > > things in (1) need to be done beforehands, or the physical device is > > > participating in the wrong layer of network. > > > the (3) list of non-physical devices are layer-2 or layer-3 and operate > > > on devices which are already configured with some some sort of > > > "addressing" configured. > > > It would be nice to have our networking people come up with nice names > > > for group (1) and (2); words which succinctly describe the > > > classification like I've done above. We need to increase understanding > > > of this order, rather than just abstractly listing names of devices with > > > complicated behaviours. > > > Once that is done, I still think it is problematic for us to list all > > > devices in each catagory: > > > a) new subsystems will be forgotten > > > b) the order of instantiation will sometimes be listed wrong -- for some > > > of these the order is highly significant. > > > We can try to list as many as possible, but people who want the precise > > > list (and order) should look in the netstart code. The lists will get > > > long and wrong. If we find we cannot maintain the lists correctly > > > because it is duplicated information, man page wording like "such as" > > > could be used, also something which leads people to consider the script > > > source as authoritative, ie. have them go read the script > > > > ok, here is a start. > > i have left the description as "non-physical", because i think that is > > clear. we could easily amend it. ifconfig.8 create talks about "network > > pseudo-devices" - that could be a possibility. > > You've deleted all the interface names, so now there are no examples. > I disagree strongly. That creates a hurdle and people won't learn how > our network pieces are configured into a multi-layer stack. Luke Call "...I, the Lord, justify you...in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land Wherefore, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; ...whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (Doctrine & Covenants 98:6,9-10. >From 1833, when I think "men" often meant "persons". More at my site: >lukecall.net .) I think *honesty*, the Constitution and the rule of law (as opposed to of individuals), are far more important, relatively, than most or all policy issues, even important ones.
