From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 6 16:39:17 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DEB116A494 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:39:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jasone@freebsd.org) Received: from canonware.com (canonware.com [64.183.146.166]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510A513C480 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 16:39:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jasone@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.168.201] (canonware.com [64.183.146.166]) by canonware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD081298B0; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 08:24:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47309480.4050103@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:21:20 -0800 From: Jason Evans User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20071018) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: obrien@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: <20071106160521.GG18357@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20071106160521.GG18357@dragon.NUXI.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Rename sys/*/conf/DEFAULT to _DEFAULT X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:39:17 -0000 David O'Brien wrote: > In the days of modern Unix, many (most?) of us have come to expect and > depend on command-line completion that today's modern shells provide in > order to reduce typing (and inaccurate typing). > > Given that premise, the "DEFAULTS" file in sys/*/conf constantly trips me > up as my kernel files are named "DEO". I know others with kernel configs > named with a 'D' that grumbled when command-line completion was now > thwart due to "DEFAULTS". > > A very simple solution to this is to rename "DEFAULTS" to "_DEFAULTS". > > One of the purposes for DEFAULTS was to semi-hide devices and options > that really aren't optional (unless you really know what you're doing) or > have POLA concerns so they would not be causally removed. So this name > change also puts this file to a different "name space" - and in fact may > better convey "there are no user serviceable parts in here". I understand your motivation, since I also heavily use completion. However, I definitely object to renaming DEFAULTS based on its potential to share a prefix with a user-created directory entry. The real solution to the completion problem is simply to become used to typing a sufficiently long prefix before prompting the shell for completion, or if this is *really* bugging you, renaming your kernel config(s). I think it would be a mistake to start making naming decisions based on potential non-uniqueness of prefixes. Now, if you were to argue that DEFAULTS steals from the set of possible kernel names, and is a land mine that users must somehow know to avoid, I'd be less inclined to protest. :-) Jason