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

[Doug Barton]

Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
>> Brooks Davis wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:30:41PM +0000, Florent Thoumie wrote:
>>>> Brooks Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:55:16PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>>>>> Brooks Davis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> How about issuing a warning for NO in both branches? Whether I agree
>>>>>> with you or not on the importance of keeping things clean and
>>>>>> consistent, I definitely do not want to err on the side of pedantry
>>>>>> over usability.
>>>>> That would be fine.  I don't really care as long as it's deprecated.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, only users who don't update /etc/defaults/rc.conf or who manually
>>>>> set gif_interfaces="NO" would be effected so the size of the set of
>>>>> effected users is probalby close to epilon and even all that will happen
>>>>> is cloning an extra interface and then not configuring it so it should
>>>>> be basicly harmless to just remove direct support for it.
>>>> Fine with me as well. Should we make it a warning on RELENG_6 and an
>>>> error on HEAD, or a warning on both. The former being be what I was
>>>> planning to do, ie. remove support for "NO" in HEAD but issue a message
>>>> saying semantics have changed. The latter would mean identical code in
>>>> both HEAD and RELENG_6 (so "NO"-compatibility in both branches), but
>>>> we'd need a reminder to remove this "NO"-support in HEAD once RELENG_7
>>>> is branched.
>>> I'd say a warning in both.
>> Re-reading Doug's message, he's probably thinking the same thing, but
>> this is for gif_interfaces only, right?
> 
> That's what I'd do.  There's no reason to introduce support for an
> instantly deprecated feature in a new variable, particularly since
> gif_interfaces is the odd one out.

Yes.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection