Re: any consideration to creating a default template rc.conf.local?

[Johan Torin <jtorin_(_at_)_myrealbox_(_dot_)_com>]

On Friday 04 June 2004 19:05, Henning Brauer wrote:
[...]
> I find the current situation where rc.conf.local and rc.local are
> treated so differently a bit unsatisfactory.

Tell me about it... It has bugged me for years.

Anyway, if OpenBSD gains a full replacement for ntpd and
friends (progress seems to be made in that department), may
I dare to suggest that the startup stuff for ntpd & co that
resides in /etc/rc.local is moved to /etc/rc ?
Because I guess the reason they are there to begin with is
that ntpd isn't a part of the default install, but rather
the portstree.

That leaves startup shell code for cfsd, snmpd and netatalk,
but perhaps that can be moved to /etc/rc too? Or simply
be removed? There are lots of stuff in the portstree that
doesn't have a entry in /etc/rc.local, samba for example.


Actually, if the situation was the reverse, rc.conf.local was
populated by default and rc.local was empty, I wouldn't care
as much. I usually rebuilds rc.conf.local each reinstall to
catch new default flags.

# cat rc.conf | grep "pf" >> rc.conf


Another daring idea: how about each package that needs
bootcode installs /usr/local/share/etc/rc.local.<packagename>
or similar? Users would need to be instructed to manually copy
and edit the examples to /etc/rc.local ofcourse.

Hmm, I think I recall seeing a similar idea be flamed
horribly, so I will crawl back to my hole now. :-)

/Johan