Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 08:52:21 +0200 (SAT) From: John Hay <jhay@mikom.csir.co.za> To: mike@smith.net.au (Mike Smith) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rc & rc.conf Message-ID: <199709140652.IAA07487@zibbi.mikom.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <199709140609.PAA00821@word.smith.net.au> from Mike Smith at "Sep 14, 97 03:39:51 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Yes, I'm not quite *that* stupid. We have two variables here: a > > -flags which is set with the flags, and an -enable which is set to > > either YES or NO. The original logic says "don't do it unless -enable > > is YES". Brian's saying "do it unless -enable is NO". I don't see an > > advantage in doing it this way, and I certainly don't see a disaster > > waiting to happen in the old way. > > The advantages are combined; consistency with all of the other similar > options, and by using "not NO", the _enable and _flags variables may > subsequently be combined. > Hmmm. I'm not sure about the consistency. A "grep NO rc" leaves me with 3 variables that is checked against NO and "grep YES rc" leaves me with 9 variables checked against YES, although if you change this it will be 5 NO's against 7 YES's. BTW. The way I keep rc and rc.conf in sync is to make all my changes in rc.conf.local, so I can always just copy rc and rc.conf into /etc without worry that I'll clobber some of my local setup. John -- John Hay -- John.Hay@mikom.csir.co.za
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709140652.IAA07487>