From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 25 18:02:31 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8794D106564A for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:02:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iw0-f185.google.com (mail-iw0-f185.google.com [209.85.223.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 525508FC17 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:02:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwn15 with SMTP id 15so5348074iwn.7 for ; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:02:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=zrXznpqKeGjDZ7iNe4qoKkj8MDBD/HW9vmFLAJ1Z/00=; b=WMcx1+6TVmIXfIspFKyxTNXslm8B5eFqzCWCtly0xtdift7gk7RpE4lZw+FiUPrf0I gdfB0nGIbFSh3kF4pEWRLYgmBOzF23FoRHnEX/YAjzbCOhOtlsg4sk7jTQgF0JVi631V EMQ0SAo39ACYhXzOukBpTQtRRRebCY8z/MLDg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=q+CbxZUQwXi9NXIJsC+uMPSzilok1A/cTi+/CmTU3xeGCm5eIfnabweXl9ErF6A5A9 JvgDvnM1ft3vwQLPgODHWX2X4CnB0424Ool7xIZdAGGi2zKnyVh2k0wWRy7hBxz5GdIG UMW+Da7at8ZFmi/ZXPq5FRuYJbv9ftKvecZRw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.146.134 with SMTP id h6mr511607ibv.16.1267120943453; Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:02:23 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:02:23 -0800 Message-ID: From: Freddie Cash To: fs@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: HAST: file name consistency X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:02:31 -0000 Just curious: why is the config file called hast.conf, but all the RC vars and scripts use hastd? Shouldn't it all be "hastd" or all "hast"? For example, if the rc script is hastd, the rcvar is hastd_enable, shouldn't the config file be called hastd.conf, and the control program called hastdctl? Or, if the config file is hast.conf and the control program is hastctl, shouldn't the rcvar and script be just hast/hast_enable? Just seems strange to have some things called "hast" and other things called "hastd" when it's all the same program/setup. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic? -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com