On 2024-05-16 09:48 +02, Solene Rapenne <solene@perso.pw> wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 11:46:41PM GMT, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> Hi Solene,
>> 
>> seeing that you did not commit this yet...
>> 
>> Jason McIntyre wrote on Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 03:19:01PM +0100:
>> > On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 02:50:58PM +0200, Solene Rapenne wrote:
>> 
>> >> this diff adds a new check in daily(8) using rcctl ls rogue
>> 
>> I like this.
>> 
>> I don't think it is very uncommon to temporarily enable a service for
>> testing purposes or for doing some one-time task.  After that, there
>> is a certain risk of getting distracted and forgetting to disable the
>> service again.  If that happens on a server, it can be quite inconvenient,
>> so the heads-up from daily(8) will usually be appreciated.
>> 
>> If, on the other hand, people *really* want a service running,
>> documenting that in rc.conf.local(8) adds clarity and reduces
>> the risk of mistakes and misunderstandings.
>> 
>> OK schwarze@
>> 
>> >> maybe wording could be merged better with the current text
>> >> to avoid repeating rc.conf.local(8) twice.
>> 
>> > i think the natural way to say this would be "and vice versa":
>> > 
>> > 	Lists any daemons which are enabled in
>> > 	.Xr rc.conf.local 8
>> > 	but which are not actually running
>> > 	(and vice versa).
>> 
>> I like this concise wording, please use it if possible.
>> 
>> Yours,
>>   Ingo
>
> I like this wording too, it's much better than my proposal.
>
> As I got no feedback about the feature itself over 2 weeks (except
> yours), it seems nobody cares having it committed, but nobody said
> this will be too noisy for them either. As it's pretty harmless I
> think I'll commit it soon except if there are good arguments not
> too.
>

I thought this already went in. OK florian

-- 
In my defence, I have been left unsupervised.