From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Sep 13 21:46:27 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA21290 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 21:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usr08.primenet.com (tlambert@usr08.primenet.com [206.165.6.208]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA21284 for ; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 21:46:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr08.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id VAA08907; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 21:46:13 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199709140446.VAA08907@usr08.primenet.com> Subject: Re: rc & rc.conf To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 04:46:13 +0000 (GMT) Cc: brian@awfulhak.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19970914101350.06261@lemis.com> from "Greg Lehey" at Sep 14, 97 10:13:50 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > This is a disaster waiting to happen: > > I'm sorry, I must be too stupid. What's wrong with that? And how > does your fix fix it? Since the flags and the -enable have been > separated, it seems that we *should* insist on the exact string YES > for the enable flags. 1) The logic is inverted from that of all similar code 2) The value "YES" means that flag values, if they should be later desired, can't be put in the string in order to activate the services with the requested flags, like you can for all similar code. At least, that's what I got out of it... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.