From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 18 02:35:30 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2795106566B for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:35:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FB78FC08 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:35:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MzLcG-0002Vv-I0 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:35:28 +0200 Received: from pool-70-21-18-105.res.east.verizon.net ([70.21.18.105]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:35:28 +0200 Received: from nightrecon by pool-70-21-18-105.res.east.verizon.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 04:35:28 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Michael Powell Followup-To: gmane.os.freebsd.questions Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:35:44 -0400 Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <4AD8EB8F.9010900@videotron.ca> <20091017010758.088b8b8c.freebsd@edvax.de> <4AD9016E.20302@videotron.ca> <4AD90946.4020204@ibctech.ca> <4AD91DE0.3030701@videotron.ca> <200910170234.n9H2YeRI077329@asarian-host.net> <4ADA2647.3020405@videotron.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-70-21-18-105.res.east.verizon.net Sender: news Subject: Re: I hate to bitch but bitch I must X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: nightrecon@hotmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:35:30 -0000 PJ wrote: [snip] >> >> > I think you're trying to take the meaning of "should" a little too > far... to keep it simple, and without trying to intellectualize it, it > simply means (and this can change within certain contexts) "normally, it > should work" (in our context, here) but there is no implication of any > warnings or dangers ... the "normally" is implied, the rest you can do > with it as you wish, obviously at your rist... but even then the > interpretation goes too far. As I suggested to Polytropon, in this > particular case the instructions for the implementation of the procedure > are very clear: use on an inactive system or SUM... so where's the > bug... to suggest that it "should work" on an active system is confusing > - if the author thought it important that it wouldl not work on an > active system, perhaps he should have merely said "do not use on an > active system"... that would be consistent and very clear. ;-) Sorry, I'm not totally clear on everything either, but it is clearly contained within a section called 'BUGS'. This should set the context and will affect how the comment should be construed. If it were located anywhere else in the man page the context would be different, this altering the intended meaning or purpose. Content within any 'BUGS' section should not be considered for normal usage of a command, unless it is something you think you can/should try and it is warning you not to do so. It is more of a disclosure of 'gotcha' potential, aka 'here be dragons' or other potential method by which an admin may shoot him/herself in the foot. Just my meager $.02, fwiw -Mike