From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 18 07:00:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C098BDB4 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:00:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [8.8.178.135]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A83E98FC08 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9I701Sf027406 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q9I7012E027405; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:00:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:00:01 GMT Message-Id: <201210180700.q9I7012E027405@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Michael Telahun Makonnen Subject: Re: docs/172692: [PATCH] Bring parts of the rc scripting guides up to date X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Michael Telahun Makonnen List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:00:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR docs/172692; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Michael Telahun Makonnen To: Chris Rees Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, "bug-followup@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: docs/172692: [PATCH] Bring parts of the rc scripting guides up to date Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:57:49 +0300 On 10/15/2012 09:26 PM, Chris Rees wrote: >> Not sure why you felt this paragraph needed to be removed. > > Because the style is clearer and makes it much more obvious when a > variable is having its own default value set. In ports at least, the > current style is to use the less verbose form. > ok > >> While you are technically correct, I think you misunderstood the >> writer's intent, which was to show how an rc.conf(8) variable can be >> used in a subroutine to control the behavior of the command. I agree >> that the example isn't a very good one (in that it doesn't depict a >> valid use case), but I think the "spirit" is correct. Maybe you can >> suggest a better example? >> > > I think that this script is very simple by design, and making a better > example would complicate it. It is definitely worth pointing out the > alternative though; it makes useful food for thought; both examples > with a disclaimer. ok > > [1] http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/rc-scripting-modernise2.diff > Looks fine to me. Thanks for taking the time to update the documentation. Cheers, Mike.