Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:01:15 +0100 From: Christian Brueffer <brueffer@FreeBSD.org> To: danger@FreeBSD.org Cc: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r186737 - head/sbin/geom/class/virstor Message-ID: <20090319160114.GA1144@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> In-Reply-To: <20090104194844.GB1257@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> References: <287359450.20090104174842@rulez.sk> <20090105.025058.119952164.hrs@allbsd.org> <1289663263.20090104185721@rulez.sk> <20090105.032211.33865530.hrs@allbsd.org> <20090104194844.GB1257@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 08:48:44PM +0100, Christian Brueffer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:22:11AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > > Daniel Gerzo <danger@freebsd.org> wrote > > in <1289663263.20090104185721@rulez.sk>: > >=20 > > da> Hello Hiroki, > > da> > > da> Sunday, January 4, 2009, 6:50:58 PM, you wrote: > > da> > > da> > Daniel Gerzo <danger@freebsd.org> wrote > > da> > in <287359450.20090104174842@rulez.sk>: > > da> > > da> da>> Hello Christian, > > da> da>> > > da> da>> Sunday, January 4, 2009, 4:58:32 PM, you wrote: > > da> da>> > > da> da>> > While using .Ex is good, collapsing EXIT STATUS into DIAGNOS= TICS is not. > > da> da>> > EXIT STATUS is a standard section in our manpages and it's o= rthogonal to > > da> da>> > DIAGNOSTICS. > > da> da>> > > da> da>> I am fine to revert this part, however I have trimmed this sec= tion > > da> da>> just because I didn't see it listed in the PAGE STRUCTURE DOMA= IN > > da> da>> section of the mdoc(7) manual page. > > da> da>> > > da> da>> Interestingly, it lists the DIAGNOSTICS section and explicitly > > da> da>> says that .Ex macro should be used there. > > da> > > da> > Is using .Ex macro really correct?. When geom(1) fails the exit > > da> > status will be 1, not >0. While many commands whose manual page= says > > da> > so return 1 on an error actually (especially when it is in POSIX= ), > > da> > the two are not the same at least. > > da> > > da> I thought that 1 > 0 ... (?) > >=20 > > I mean I am wondering if rewriting "1" with ">0" is reasonable or > > not. "1>0" is always true, but "1" is not equal to ">0". > >=20 > > Some other manual pages have the description "1 on error.". If we > > have a consensus on that this rewriting is reasonable, we should > > also rewrite them in consistency. > >=20 >=20 > Interesting question, I have no strong opinion for either of the > alternatives. I agree that we should standardize on one though. >=20 Any news on this? I would still like to see the original change be reverted. - Christian --=20 Christian Brueffer chris@unixpages.org brueffer@FreeBSD.org GPG Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFJwmxKbHYXjKDtmC0RAsRPAJ41f+Qp0iEMGHvdreOA54NleeJTRQCgrfNn TotjB9UygSZKEMMfly1pugU= =t0X4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090319160114.GA1144>