Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:39:51 +0930 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, brian@awfulhak.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rc & rc.conf Message-ID: <199709140609.PAA00821@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:15:17 %2B0930." <19970914151517.24823@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Yes, I'm not quite *that* stupid. We have two variables here: a > -flags which is set with the flags, and an -enable which is set to > either YES or NO. The original logic says "don't do it unless -enable > is YES". Brian's saying "do it unless -enable is NO". I don't see an > advantage in doing it this way, and I certainly don't see a disaster > waiting to happen in the old way. The advantages are combined; consistency with all of the other similar options, and by using "not NO", the _enable and _flags variables may subsequently be combined. > Another thing that puzzles me is why somebody would want to disable > cron. Footprint. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709140609.PAA00821>