Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:57:29 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deriving base port/package names Message-ID: <570B8319.5080408@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <20160408144722.DF8B828431@elsa.codelab.cz> References: <51300.1460083670@server1.tristatelogic.com> <5707b24b.9143620a.1a679.ffffbb00SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING@mx.google.com> <20160408144957.26ad363f@gumby.homeunix.com> <20160408144722.DF8B828431@elsa.codelab.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Roger Marquis wrote on 04/08/2016 16:47: [...] > Some of us see this as a weakness in the standard. That plus the lack > of documentation where you'd expect to find it violates the principles > of least surprise and KIS. There is one more place where naming is really strange - rc scripts. These scripts have usually the same filename as PROVIDE value and name="" value. But there is ugly exception in /etc/rc.d/bgfsck: filename: bgfsck name: background-fsck rcvar: background_fsck It causes problems with eval in rc.subr. I already tried to discuss it 6 years ago but it seems nobody cares. https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc/2010-January/001814.html Note - in the original message the second example is from rc.d/sshd not rc.d/bgfsck Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?570B8319.5080408>