Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

opendaddy
Hello,

Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` (like FreeBSD's rc.conf) make more sense for enabling daemons than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Most of my daemons don't have any flags so it looks a bit strange (and messy) with all these empty flag specs.

Thanks!

O.D.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Ingo Schwarze
Hi,

[hidden email] wrote on Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:25:50PM +0000:

> Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` (like FreeBSD's rc.conf) make more sense
> for enabling daemons than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

No, `daemon_flags=""` is better.
When you do need flags, it needs only one variable instead of two,
which means less complexity.
Besides, having both cases (with and without flags) use the same
syntax instead of two different syntaxes is simpler.

Note that there *is* an ugly issue in the vicinity.  Base daemons
are enabled with "daemon_flags", package daemons are enabled with
"pkg_scripts".  But that asymmetry cannot be resolved because the
startup order of package daemons must be specified, while the startup
order of base daemons is hardcoded in rc(8) and cannot be changed.
Your suggestion wouldn't help at all with that problem.

> Most of my daemons don't have any flags so it looks a bit strange
> (and messy) with all these empty flag specs.

That's a matter of taste and purely aestetical without any functional
consequences, so if it's an argument at all, it carries almost no
weight.

Yours,
  Ingo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Jorge Gabriel Lopez Paramount
Quoting Ingo Schwarze <[hidden email]>:

>> Most of my daemons don't have any flags so it looks a bit strange
>> (and messy) with all these empty flag specs.
>
> That's a matter of taste and purely aestetical without any functional
> consequences, so if it's an argument at all, it carries almost no
> weight.

There are worse ways of starting up daemons, like systemd.

--
Best regards,
Jorge Lopez.


----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

opendaddy
In reply to this post by Ingo Schwarze
Hello,

On 28. januar 2015 at 11:02 PM, "Ingo Schwarze" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>When you do need flags, it needs only one variable instead of two,
>which means less complexity.

Due to OpenBSD's excellent "convention over configuration" (1), most people don't need flags.

Your argument that the current scheme leads to less complexity is nonsensical at best. Less characters maybe, but are we really joining together two different variables (startup and configuration) for the sake of saving space?

Like Einstein said, "things should be as simple as possible, but not any simpler". `daemon_flags` carries absolutely no indication of whether this daemon is to be enabled or not. Like my teacher used to say, good design should, where possible, make immediate sense to the user (2). In the case of `rc.conf.local`, this is possible by splitting the current variable into `daemon_enable=YES` and `daemon_flags=""` respectively.

As for `pkg_scripts`, I'm also a fan of the way FreeBSD handles this by letting you specify `<pkg>_enable="YES"` directly in order to keep things consistent.

Having said that, this is pretty much where my admiration of FreeBSD ends :-)

Many thanks!

O.D.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
(2) http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-Usability/dp/0321965515

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

James Ryland Miller
>Due to OpenBSD's excellent "convention over configuration" (1), most people don't need flags.

As a brand new OpenBSD user, I *love* how the flags work in rc.conf.local:

 "" says to me that the daemon is being called with no flags.
"YES" doesn't tell me that; it just tells me that I might have to look
in another config file somewhere.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 28. januar 2015 at 11:02 PM, "Ingo Schwarze" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>When you do need flags, it needs only one variable instead of two,
>>which means less complexity.
>
> Due to OpenBSD's excellent "convention over configuration" (1), most people don't need flags.
>
> Your argument that the current scheme leads to less complexity is nonsensical at best. Less characters maybe, but are we really joining together two different variables (startup and configuration) for the sake of saving space?
>
> Like Einstein said, "things should be as simple as possible, but not any simpler". `daemon_flags` carries absolutely no indication of whether this daemon is to be enabled or not. Like my teacher used to say, good design should, where possible, make immediate sense to the user (2). In the case of `rc.conf.local`, this is possible by splitting the current variable into `daemon_enable=YES` and `daemon_flags=""` respectively.
>
> As for `pkg_scripts`, I'm also a fan of the way FreeBSD handles this by letting you specify `<pkg>_enable="YES"` directly in order to keep things consistent.
>
> Having said that, this is pretty much where my admiration of FreeBSD ends :-)
>
> Many thanks!
>
> O.D.
>
> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
> (2) http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-Usability/dp/0321965515
>



--
James R. Miller

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

opendaddy
Hi,

On 28. januar 2015 at 11:45 PM, "James Ryland Miller" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>As a brand new OpenBSD user, I *love* how the flags work in
>rc.conf.local:
>
> "" says to me that the daemon is being called with no flags.
>"YES" doesn't tell me that; it just tells me that I might have to
>look in another config file somewhere.

Indeed, `daemon_flags="YES"` wouldn't make any sense at all. What I'd like to see is:

    ntpd_enable="YES"
    ntpd_flags="-s"

Considering we're talking about two different things here (one for enabling it and one for configuring it), one could argue that this would be more in line with the core Unix philosophy (1) of "doing one thing and doing it well".

Thanks.

O.D.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

>
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 28. januar 2015 at 11:02 PM, "Ingo Schwarze"
><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>>When you do need flags, it needs only one variable instead of
>two,
>>>which means less complexity.
>>
>> Due to OpenBSD's excellent "convention over configuration" (1),
>most people don't need flags.
>>
>> Your argument that the current scheme leads to less complexity
>is nonsensical at best. Less characters maybe, but are we really
>joining together two different variables (startup and
>configuration) for the sake of saving space?
>>
>> Like Einstein said, "things should be as simple as possible, but
>not any simpler". `daemon_flags` carries absolutely no indication
>of whether this daemon is to be enabled or not. Like my teacher
>used to say, good design should, where possible, make immediate
>sense to the user (2). In the case of `rc.conf.local`, this is
>possible by splitting the current variable into
>`daemon_enable=YES` and `daemon_flags=""` respectively.
>>
>> As for `pkg_scripts`, I'm also a fan of the way FreeBSD handles
>this by letting you specify `<pkg>_enable="YES"` directly in order
>to keep things consistent.
>>
>> Having said that, this is pretty much where my admiration of
>FreeBSD ends :-)
>>
>> Many thanks!
>>
>> O.D.
>>
>> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
>> (2) http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-
>Usability/dp/0321965515
>>
>
>
>
>--
>James R. Miller

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by opendaddy
> Indeed, `daemon_flags="YES"` wouldn't make any sense at all. What I'd like to see is:
>
>     ntpd_enable="YES"
>     ntpd_flags="-s"
>
> Considering we're talking about two different things here (one for enabling it and one for configuring it), one could argue that this would be more in line with the core Unix philosophy (1) of "doing one thing and doing it well".
>
> Thanks.
>
> O.D.
>
> (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy

I've think you've had your say.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

opendaddy
On 29. januar 2015 at 12:02 AM, "Theo de Raadt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>I've think you've had your say.

Thank you sir!

O.D.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Raf Czlonka-2
In reply to this post by opendaddy
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:05:24AM GMT, [hidden email] wrote:

> Indeed, `daemon_flags="YES"` wouldn't make any sense at all. What I'd
> like to see is:
>
>     ntpd_enable="YES"
>     ntpd_flags="-s"
>
> Considering we're talking about two different things here (one for
> enabling it and one for configuring it), one could argue that this
> would be more in line with the core Unix philosophy (1) of "doing one
> thing and doing it well".

Or you can just learn that ${daemon_flags} does both - enables/disables
the daemon in question and sets its flags (if any).

And you saved yourself from having to memorise and type yet another
variables every time for daemons which (sometimes) might require flags.

Raf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

J Sisson
In reply to this post by opendaddy
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Indeed, `daemon_flags="YES"` wouldn't make any sense at all. What I'd like to see is:
>
>     ntpd_enable="YES"
>     ntpd_flags="-s"
>
> Considering we're talking about two different things here (one for enabling it and one for configuring it), one could argue that this would be more in line with the core Unix philosophy (1) of "doing one thing and doing it well".
>

This is one of those "cat $file | grep $pattern" arguments.  Sure, you
can split it out, but if it can be done with "grep $pattern $file",
why bother?


> Thanks.
>
> O.D.
>
> (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
>
>>
>>On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On 28. januar 2015 at 11:02 PM, "Ingo Schwarze"
>><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>When you do need flags, it needs only one variable instead of
>>two,
>>>>which means less complexity.
>>>
>>> Due to OpenBSD's excellent "convention over configuration" (1),
>>most people don't need flags.
>>>
>>> Your argument that the current scheme leads to less complexity
>>is nonsensical at best. Less characters maybe, but are we really
>>joining together two different variables (startup and
>>configuration) for the sake of saving space?
>>>
>>> Like Einstein said, "things should be as simple as possible, but
>>not any simpler". `daemon_flags` carries absolutely no indication
>>of whether this daemon is to be enabled or not. Like my teacher
>>used to say, good design should, where possible, make immediate
>>sense to the user (2). In the case of `rc.conf.local`, this is
>>possible by splitting the current variable into
>>`daemon_enable=YES` and `daemon_flags=""` respectively.
>>>
>>> As for `pkg_scripts`, I'm also a fan of the way FreeBSD handles
>>this by letting you specify `<pkg>_enable="YES"` directly in order
>>to keep things consistent.
>>>
>>> Having said that, this is pretty much where my admiration of
>>FreeBSD ends :-)
>>>
>>> Many thanks!
>>>
>>> O.D.
>>>
>>> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
>>> (2) http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-
>>Usability/dp/0321965515
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>James R. Miller
>



--
"BSD is what happens when Unix programmers port Unix to the x86.
Linux is what happens when x86 programmers write a Unix-like.
Windows is what happens when x86 programmers run all of their
programming textbooks through a blender, eat the ground up
remains of the text, and then code up what they can read in the
toilet 3 days later."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

James Ryland Miller
>Or you can just learn that ${daemon_flags} does both - enables/disables
>the daemon in question and sets its flags (if any).

Exactly.

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:16 PM, J Sisson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:05 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Indeed, `daemon_flags="YES"` wouldn't make any sense at all. What I'd like to see is:
>>
>>     ntpd_enable="YES"
>>     ntpd_flags="-s"
>>
>> Considering we're talking about two different things here (one for enabling it and one for configuring it), one could argue that this would be more in line with the core Unix philosophy (1) of "doing one thing and doing it well".
>>
>
> This is one of those "cat $file | grep $pattern" arguments.  Sure, you
> can split it out, but if it can be done with "grep $pattern $file",
> why bother?
>
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> O.D.
>>
>> (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy
>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 5:33 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> On 28. januar 2015 at 11:02 PM, "Ingo Schwarze"
>>><[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>When you do need flags, it needs only one variable instead of
>>>two,
>>>>>which means less complexity.
>>>>
>>>> Due to OpenBSD's excellent "convention over configuration" (1),
>>>most people don't need flags.
>>>>
>>>> Your argument that the current scheme leads to less complexity
>>>is nonsensical at best. Less characters maybe, but are we really
>>>joining together two different variables (startup and
>>>configuration) for the sake of saving space?
>>>>
>>>> Like Einstein said, "things should be as simple as possible, but
>>>not any simpler". `daemon_flags` carries absolutely no indication
>>>of whether this daemon is to be enabled or not. Like my teacher
>>>used to say, good design should, where possible, make immediate
>>>sense to the user (2). In the case of `rc.conf.local`, this is
>>>possible by splitting the current variable into
>>>`daemon_enable=YES` and `daemon_flags=""` respectively.
>>>>
>>>> As for `pkg_scripts`, I'm also a fan of the way FreeBSD handles
>>>this by letting you specify `<pkg>_enable="YES"` directly in order
>>>to keep things consistent.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, this is pretty much where my admiration of
>>>FreeBSD ends :-)
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks!
>>>>
>>>> O.D.
>>>>
>>>> (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
>>>> (2) http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-
>>>Usability/dp/0321965515
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>James R. Miller
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "BSD is what happens when Unix programmers port Unix to the x86.
> Linux is what happens when x86 programmers write a Unix-like.
> Windows is what happens when x86 programmers run all of their
> programming textbooks through a blender, eat the ground up
> remains of the text, and then code up what they can read in the
> toilet 3 days later."



--
James R. Miller

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Nick Holland
In reply to this post by opendaddy
On 01/28/15 17:25, [hidden email] wrote:
...
> Most of my daemons don't have any flags ...
...
Really?  Look closer...

IF the vast majority of daemons didn't have any flags at all, maybe
there'd be some merit to this, but I don't think that's true.

Here's a moderately simple rc.conf.local on one of my machines
    ftpd_flags="-llSA"
    mountd_flags=""
    nfsd_flags="-tun 4"
    ntpd_flags=""
    pkg_scripts=rsyncd
    portmap_flags=""
    rsyncd_flags=""
    slowcgi_flags=
    unbound_flags=""

portmap has one option flag which is not useful in startup scripts.
mountd has two, one of which might be useable in startup scripts, though
admittedly really making things unusual.  The rest all have important
and often useful flags.  YOU may not use them often, but some people
probably do.

OpenBSD uses a "Sane Default" model, so very often the flags ARE empty,
but a lot (I'd guess "most", based on that model and spot checking of
daemons listed in rc.conf) of the daemons have knobs that some people
need to twist.  You may not, but while we appreciate your support, you
aren't our only user. :)

Nick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

opendaddy
Greetings Nick!

On 29. januar 2015 at 12:48 PM, "Nick Holland" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>On 01/28/15 17:25, [hidden email] wrote:
>...
>> Most of my daemons don't have any flags ...
>...
>Really?  Look closer...
>
>IF the vast majority of daemons didn't have any flags at all, maybe
>there'd be some merit to this, but I don't think that's true.
>
>Here's a moderately simple rc.conf.local on one of my machines
>    ftpd_flags="-llSA"
>    mountd_flags=""
>    nfsd_flags="-tun 4"
>    ntpd_flags=""
>    pkg_scripts=rsyncd
>    portmap_flags=""
>    rsyncd_flags=""
>    slowcgi_flags=
>    unbound_flags=""
>
>portmap has one option flag which is not useful in startup scripts.
>mountd has two, one of which might be useable in startup scripts,
>though
>admittedly really making things unusual.  The rest all have
>important
>and often useful flags.  YOU may not use them often, but some
>people
>probably do.
>
>OpenBSD uses a "Sane Default" model, so very often the flags ARE
>empty,
>but a lot (I'd guess "most", based on that model and spot checking
>of
>daemons listed in rc.conf) of the daemons have knobs that some
>people
>need to twist.  You may not, but while we appreciate your support,
>you
>aren't our only user. :)

Indeed, don't get me wrong, I use flags all the time as well. I'm just arguing for a cleaner separation between startup and configuration for a slightly more semantic (and better looking) `rc.conf.local`, ie.:

    ftpd_enable=YES
    ftpd_flags="-llSA"
    mountd_enable=YES
    nfsd_enable=YES
    nfsd_flags="-tun 4"
    ntpd_enable=YES
    portmap_enable=YES
    rsyncd_enable=YES
    slowcgi_enable=YES
    unbound_enable=YES

Thanks for your feedback!

O.D.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Raf Czlonka-2
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16:41PM GMT, [hidden email] wrote:

> Indeed, don't get me wrong, I use flags all the time as well. I'm just
> arguing for a cleaner separation between startup and configuration for
> a slightly more semantic (and better looking) `rc.conf.local`, ie.:
>
>     ftpd_enable=YES
>     ftpd_flags="-llSA"
>     mountd_enable=YES
>     nfsd_enable=YES
>     nfsd_flags="-tun 4"
>     ntpd_enable=YES
>     portmap_enable=YES
>     rsyncd_enable=YES
>     slowcgi_enable=YES
>     unbound_enable=YES

Semantic? Maybe. Better looking? Most certainly not!

Configuration == Startup

Basically, if you are configuring a daemon, that is by using
${daemon_flags}, then you *intend* to *run* it. If you *don't* intend to
run it, *don't* configure it (or hash it out)!

Simple? Simple!

> Thanks for your feedback!

You're welcome :^)

Regards,

Raf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Calvin
There's also simplicity of implementation. Even a few more
lines means more bugs. Having the parameters as one and
checking for less cases means simpler software, and simple
is reliable.

________________________________________
From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] on behalf of Raf Czlonka [[hidden email]]
Sent: January 29, 2015 8:03 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:16:41PM GMT, [hidden email] wrote:

> Indeed, don't get me wrong, I use flags all the time as well. I'm just
> arguing for a cleaner separation between startup and configuration for
> a slightly more semantic (and better looking) `rc.conf.local`, ie.:
>
>     ftpd_enable=YES
>     ftpd_flags="-llSA"
>     mountd_enable=YES
>     nfsd_enable=YES
>     nfsd_flags="-tun 4"
>     ntpd_enable=YES
>     portmap_enable=YES
>     rsyncd_enable=YES
>     slowcgi_enable=YES
>     unbound_enable=YES

Semantic? Maybe. Better looking? Most certainly not!

Configuration == Startup

Basically, if you are configuring a daemon, that is by using
${daemon_flags}, then you *intend* to *run* it. If you *don't* intend to
run it, *don't* configure it (or hash it out)!

Simple? Simple!

> Thanks for your feedback!

You're welcome :^)

Regards,

Raf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Theo de Raadt
In reply to this post by opendaddy
> On 29. januar 2015 at 12:48 PM, "Nick Holland" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >On 01/28/15 17:25, [hidden email] wrote:
> >...
> >> Most of my daemons don't have any flags ...
> >...
> >Really?  Look closer...
> >
> >IF the vast majority of daemons didn't have any flags at all, maybe
> >there'd be some merit to this, but I don't think that's true.
> >
> >Here's a moderately simple rc.conf.local on one of my machines
> >    ftpd_flags="-llSA"
> >    mountd_flags=""
> >    nfsd_flags="-tun 4"
> >    ntpd_flags=""
> >    pkg_scripts=rsyncd
> >    portmap_flags=""
> >    rsyncd_flags=""
> >    slowcgi_flags=
> >    unbound_flags=""
> >
> >portmap has one option flag which is not useful in startup scripts.
> >mountd has two, one of which might be useable in startup scripts,
> >though
> >admittedly really making things unusual.  The rest all have
> >important
> >and often useful flags.  YOU may not use them often, but some
> >people
> >probably do.
> >
> >OpenBSD uses a "Sane Default" model, so very often the flags ARE
> >empty,
> >but a lot (I'd guess "most", based on that model and spot checking
> >of
> >daemons listed in rc.conf) of the daemons have knobs that some
> >people
> >need to twist.  You may not, but while we appreciate your support,
> >you
> >aren't our only user. :)
>
> Indeed, don't get me wrong, I use flags all the time as well. I'm just arguing for a cleaner separation between startup and configuration for a slightly more semantic (and better looking) `rc.conf.local`, ie.:
>
>     ftpd_enable=YES
>     ftpd_flags="-llSA"
>     mountd_enable=YES
>     nfsd_enable=YES
>     nfsd_flags="-tun 4"
>     ntpd_enable=YES
>     portmap_enable=YES
>     rsyncd_enable=YES
>     slowcgi_enable=YES
>     unbound_enable=YES
>
> Thanks for your feedback!

You've had your say.  It is not changing to please you and hurt everyone
else.  Do you get it?  I doubt it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by James Ryland Miller
On 2015-01-28, James Ryland Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As a brand new OpenBSD user, I *love* how the flags work in rc.conf.local:
>
>  "" says to me that the daemon is being called with no flags.

Unfortunately you run into an inconsistency here, which occurs exactly
because of this double-duty: "" actually means "use the default flags from
the daemon_flags line in /etc/rc.d/somefile.rc".

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Joel Rees-2
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:49 PM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2015-01-28, James Ryland Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As a brand new OpenBSD user, I *love* how the flags work in rc.conf.local:
>>
>>  "" says to me that the daemon is being called with no flags.
>
> Unfortunately you run into an inconsistency here, which occurs exactly
> because of this double-duty: "" actually means "use the default flags from
> the daemon_flags line in /etc/rc.d/somefile.rc".
>

Which is half of what opendaddy is missing.

I half-sympathize with his concerns. It _seems_ nice to have the
bundle of patch cables all connected and ready, and one switch
separate from the patch cable bundle to actually turn the box on and
patch it in.

"Seems" being the operational word, and the issue of where one is
looking for the switch being, perhaps, the missed point?

--
Joel Rees

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

James Ryland Miller
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 2015-01-28, James Ryland Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> As a brand new OpenBSD user, I *love* how the flags work in rc.conf.local:
>>
>>  "" says to me that the daemon is being called with no flags.
>
> Unfortunately you run into an inconsistency here, which occurs exactly
> because of this double-duty: "" actually means "use the default flags from
> the daemon_flags line in /etc/rc.d/somefile.rc".

Yes, I understand that now. It still makes more sense to me
the way it is currently implemented.


--
James R. Miller

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Wouldn't `daemon_enable=YES` make more sense than `daemon_flags=""` in rc.conf.local?

Stuart Henderson
On 2015/01/30 18:25, James Ryland Miller wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:49 AM, Stuart Henderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2015-01-28, James Ryland Miller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >> As a brand new OpenBSD user, I *love* how the flags work in rc.conf.local:
> >>
> >>  "" says to me that the daemon is being called with no flags.
> >
> > Unfortunately you run into an inconsistency here, which occurs exactly
> > because of this double-duty: "" actually means "use the default flags from
> > the daemon_flags line in /etc/rc.d/somefile.rc".
>
> Yes, I understand that now. It still makes more sense to me
> the way it is currently implemented.

It does, until you really want no parameters whatsoever and need to use
foo_flags=" " to work around it ;)

12