From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 6 22:40:04 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154D416B1C5 for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 22:17:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 474D143D9E for ; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 22:17:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k56MHFcv024933; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:17:15 -0700 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id k56MHFTt024932; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:17:15 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:17:15 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: Alexander Botero-Lowry Message-ID: <20060606221715.GB13570@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20060606205325.GA13570@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <200606062147.k56LlW3i059772@Laptop.mine.box> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="neYutvxvOLaeuPCA" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200606062147.k56LlW3i059772@Laptop.mine.box> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of set_rcvar X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 22:40:05 -0000 --neYutvxvOLaeuPCA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 05:47:31PM -0400, Alexander Botero-Lowry wrote: > One question I've always had is why FreeBSD picked to have > ${name}_enable instead of just ${name} like on NetBSD? Was there a lot > of debate about this, was it to make the variables less ambigious, or > osmething else? My understanding is that we did it for historical reasons in the base system and in ports because they should be consistent with the base system. Changing now would be difficult and have little or no value. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --neYutvxvOLaeuPCA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEhf7qXY6L6fI4GtQRAj67AJ46rgRhVFl+oZVf2i/7Xz31CpyEiQCgiJu2 T0S4o0w8qTyYA/hDpOyr2wc= =bQ7g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --neYutvxvOLaeuPCA--