| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Doug Barton | Jun 15, 2002 12:14 pm | |
| Gordon Tetlow | Jun 16, 2002 9:58 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 16, 2002 11:01 am | |
| Julian Elischer | Jun 16, 2002 1:24 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 16, 2002 1:50 pm | |
| Nik Clayton | Jun 16, 2002 2:39 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 16, 2002 3:07 pm | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 17, 2002 2:10 am | |
| Dag-Erling Smorgrav | Jun 17, 2002 2:32 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 17, 2002 9:01 am | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 17, 2002 11:48 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 17, 2002 4:51 pm | |
| Giorgos Keramidas | Jun 17, 2002 7:49 pm | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 1:29 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 2:06 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 18, 2002 5:04 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 5:21 am | |
| Trish Lynch | Jun 18, 2002 6:04 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 18, 2002 6:05 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 6:12 am | |
| Mike Makonnen | Jun 18, 2002 7:26 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 10:54 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 11:06 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 11:23 am | |
| Sheldon Hearn | Jun 18, 2002 11:35 am | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 11:41 am | |
| Gordon Tetlow | Jun 18, 2002 12:53 pm | |
| Nik Clayton | Jun 18, 2002 2:40 pm | |
| Doug Barton | Jun 18, 2002 3:17 pm | |
| Nik Clayton | Jun 18, 2002 3:27 pm | |
| Garance A Drosihn | Jun 18, 2002 6:00 pm | |
| Julian Elischer | Jun 18, 2002 6:20 pm |
| Subject: | Re: 4.x compatibilty.. Was: MFC of rcNG? | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Nik Clayton (ni...@freebsd.org) | |
| Date: | Jun 16, 2002 2:39:55 pm | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-arch | |
Julian,
On Sun, Jun 16, 2002 at 01:24:46PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
The reason for having 4.x branch is for 'backwards compaitible' changes to be made available to users of 4.x FreeBSD.
The only features fo rcNG that can be MFC'd are those that are pure additions.
Not to pick on you specifically, but have people forgotten how to read?
In my original message I explicitly said:
I realise it's quite a fundamental change to the startup system, but if it made it in to 4.7 as an alternative (so the default remains the same) . . .
In other words, all these people with mission critical systems running stable see zero change. It would only be those of who did the equivalent of
rcng_enable="YES"
(or whatever the variable is) that would get the new functionality. Giving us the chance to try it out, and test it in production environments, without needing to learn another way of doing things as part of the 'cut over to 5.x' process.
Hmm. When is the existing /etc/rc* system going to be officially deprecated? Has anyone thought about that? At the moment it sounds like 5.x is going to ship with the new system, and without the old one. Shouldn't we be doing something like?
4.7 -- Announce the new system, with the old system as default 5.0 -- Use the new system as default, keep the old system 6.0 -- Remove the old system
I'm sure we can bike shed the version numbers at which these events happen.
N
-- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.freebsd.org/ (__) FreeBSD Documentation Project http://www.freebsd.org/docproj/ \\\'',) \/ \ ^ --- 15B8 3FFC DDB4 34B0 AA5F 94B7 93A8 0764 2C37 E375 --- .\._/_)





