From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Sep 14 20:39:18 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA23966
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:39:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ocean.campus.luth.se (ocean.campus.luth.se [130.240.194.116])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA23961
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from karpen@localhost)
	by ocean.campus.luth.se (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA01655;
	Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:43:33 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se>
Message-Id: <199709150343.FAA01655@ocean.campus.luth.se>
Subject: Re: rc & rc.conf
In-Reply-To: <199709142342.AAA25735@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> from Brian Somers at "Sep 15, 97 00:42:22 am"
To: brian@awfulhak.org (Brian Somers)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 05:43:33 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL31H (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

According to Brian Somers:
> > Maybe "inetd_enable" should become "inetd_disable" and only "NO" will 
> > disable inetd.
> 
> I don't think this is good.  Currently, they're all _enable variables 
> that are tested as "== YES" or "!= NO" depending on what the default 
> should be for a user that hasn't even set the variables.  Adding 
> another negative into the equation would just succeed in confusing me 
> anyway.

I agree. Keep _enable and "!= NO".

  /Mikael