Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

In message: Garance A Drosihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : In this discussion, there have been two suggestions as to how : 'firewall_enable=no' should behave. : 1) if the firewall is compiled in the kernel, then "=no" :means that the

Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

At 4:52 PM -0500 2/1/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >It *is* reasonable for them to assume the same >behavior would be true for network_enable=no. I meant "firewall_enable=no" here! If the option *was* called "network_enable=no", then it would be VERY reasonable to expect the machine to be locked

RE: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

At 5:16 PM -0500 2/1/02, Benjamin P. Grubin wrote: > > I understand the first "error" (where the machine ends up completely >> open) is not desirable. It is very very bad. However, I >> think we can write some code to help out that user. That >> user is extremely likely to be sitting at the

RE: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

Fardy > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus > In this discussion, there have been two suggestions as to how > 'firewall_enable=no' should behave. > 1) if the firewall is compiled in the kernel, then &qu

Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

At 6:36 PM +0100 2/1/02, Erik Trulsson wrote: >Consider that the actual code in the various rc* start scripts is >in most cases of the form: > >if foo_enable==yes > do stuff >else > do nothing Let me approach this from a different angle. Several people have tried to argue this by proposing v

Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

At 6:36 PM +0100 2/1/02, Erik Trulsson wrote: >Consider that the actual code in the various rc* start scripts is >in most cases of the form: > >if foo_enable==yes > do stuff >else > do nothing The RC scripts are starting up in a "known" environment (loosely speaking). Enough is known about t

Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

Hi all, > But I think that the intent in /etc/rc.conf is that enable="NO" > _is_ the same thing as disabling it. You might say "If that were > the intent, they'd have used ___." What word should we use > to indicate the absolute YES or NO that some of us believe > should be the simple correc

Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:47:30AM -0330, Paul Fardy wrote: > These examples, _and_yours_, are examples that suggest that > /etc/rc.conf has a fundamental principle that > > foo_enable="YES/NO" > > is supreme. One can set up all the requisite parameters (e.g. you > can create sendmail.cf,

Re: *_enable="YES" behavior is bogus

Paul Fardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> types: >> When the rc.conf file includes >> foo_enable="NO" >> it's right to expect that the system will operate like a system that does >> not >> have foo installed. On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 04:43 AM, Mike Meyer wrote: > So you think that if I instal