From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 21 22:50:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D44416A4CF for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:50:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gw.Awfulhak.org (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [80.177.173.150]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA85043D5C for ; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:50:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Received: from dev.lan.Awfulhak.org (brian@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org [172.16.0.5]) by gw.Awfulhak.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id i7LMonBS063369; Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:50:50 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from brian@Awfulhak.org) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:50:48 +0100 From: Brian Somers To: Giorgos Keramidas Message-Id: <20040821235048.6244270a@dev.lan.Awfulhak.org> In-Reply-To: <20040821202252.GB94336@gothmog.gr> References: <20040821191659.GA94336@gothmog.gr> <20040821202252.GB94336@gothmog.gr> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.64 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on gw.lan.Awfulhak.org cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Introducing a poweroff(8) command X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:50:58 -0000 On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 23:22:52 +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > On 2004-08-21 22:16, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > In response to PR misc/70476 about `halt -p' I wrote a simple patch to > > introduce a "poweroff" command that will default to "halt -p" behavior > > and inhibit the need for changing the default behavior of halt(8). > > > > o Does this look ok to you all? > > > > o Should I suggest using it as a workaround of the behavior > > described in the PR? > > It would be nice if I also included the patch :-? IMHO poweroff should behave like ``shutdown -p now'' rather than ``halt -p''. -- Brian Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !