conf/104884: Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf

[Brooks Davis]

On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 06:46:51PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote:
> > Florent Thoumie wrote:
> >> Brooks Davis wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 04:14:50PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
> >>>> Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:10:18 GMT
> >>>>> FreeBSD-gnats-submit at FreeBSD.org wrote:
> >>>>>> Thank you very much for your problem report.
> >>>>>> It has the internal identification `conf/104884'.
> >>>>>> The individual assigned to look at your
> >>>>>> report is: freebsd-bugs. You can access the state of your problem
> >>>>>> report at any time
> >>>>>> via this link:
> >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=104884
> >>>>>>> Category:       conf
> >>>>>>> Responsible:    freebsd-bugs
> >>>>>>> Synopsis:       Add support EtherChannel configuration to rc.conf
> >>>>>>> Arrival-Date:   Sat Oct 28 16:10:18 GMT 2006
> >>>>>     I chased HEAD.  Please see following patch.
> >>>>>     Anyone, please handle this PR?
> >>>>>     And I'll make a patch for 6-stable.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I've made my comments on this. Maybe someone else should review it?
> >>> It seems basicly fine and should be useful.  (At least until someone
> >>> finally shoots the netgraph part of ng_fec in the head.)  I'd like to
> >>> see "" be the offical way to not configure any fec interfaces. gif_up's
> >>> use of NO is a mistake (IMO).  It would be OK to allow "NO" as an
> >>> undocumented synanim for "".
> >>
> >> Agreed, as said in my previous post.
> >>
> >> I think we could just set gif_interfaces and fec_interfaces to "" in
> >> -CURRENT and add the "NO" compatibility in RELENG_6 when MFC time comes?
> >> That would be a candidate for 7.0 RELNOTES.
> >>
> >> Does it make any sense to you?
> > 
> > My instinct is to have it the other way around, with "NO" being the
> > default, and "" being a synonym. We've trained people that "NO" is the
> > way to turn things off with rc, and the one glaring exception to that
> > rule (sendmail) has caused an enormous amount of confusion over the years.
> > 
> > Other than that, I have no objections here.
> 
> IMHO, it makes sense to have "NO" as opposed to "YES". In this case,
> it's a list. So an empty list would be "", but keeping
> "NO"-compatibility for the -STABLE branch ensures POLA. At least that's
> how I see it.

I agree.  It's a list not a Boolean.  There's no reason to poison its
name space this way.  Also, gif_interfaces is the only *_interfaces
variable that takes "NO" as a special argument.

The default should be an empty list which results in nothing happening.
I'd suggest making empty list the value for the default gif_interfaces
in /etc/defaults/rc.conf in both branches, removing support for NO in
CURRENT and emitting a warning in stable.

-- Brooks