Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:16:45 +0100 (MET) From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> Cc: perhaps@yes.no, ache@nagual.pp.ru, guido@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/su su.1 su.c Message-ID: <199710282216.XAA03772@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Guido van Rooij's message of Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:02:22 %2B0100 (MET) References: <199710280112.CAA00610@bitbox.follo.net> <199710281902.UAA00981@gvr.gvr.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> > > -c is used in *FreeBSD* to specify a command, or at least was used > > prior to your commit. > > > > IMO, being internally consistent and not re-using options is more > > important than being compatible with BSD/OS here - my vote is for > > using -C. > > > > After thinking this over: There is no problem. The -c you refer to is passed > to the shell. This -c is for the class. It is issued before the > user you want to su to. So there is no problem here. There is a conflict in consistency - the user see this as an option to su, not the shell, and would see it as a re-use of an option. It doesn't bother me much, as I know the deal, but I believe it would bother a new/infrequent user. (This is not important to me, so if you still don't agree, just leave it at that and let the case rest.) Eivind.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710282216.XAA03772>