From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Aug  7 06:10:40 2005
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F1016A41F;
	Sun,  7 Aug 2005 06:10:40 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from haven.freebsd.dk (haven.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BBA443E9;
	Sun,  7 Aug 2005 06:10:39 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by haven.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id E38D8BC6B;
	Sun,  7 Aug 2005 06:10:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:11:38 MDT."
	<20050806.191138.104336036.imp@bsdimp.com> 
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 08:10:35 +0200
Message-ID: <29826.1123395035@phk.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@phk.freebsd.dk
Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, scottl@samsco.org, src-committers@freebsd.org,
	cvs-all@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/amd Makefile.inc src/usr.sbin/amd/amd
	Makefile src/usr.sbin/amd/include config.h 
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 06:10:40 -0000

In message <20050806.191138.104336036.imp@bsdimp.com>, "M. Warner Losh" writes:

>Agreed.  I was going to write up a patch that will remove this
>confusion and respect the current way of doing NO_FOO from a user's
>perspective.

I thought we had settled on the NO_FOO being boolean and didn't want
to disturb that for additive features (like HESIOD now is).

As long as we don't get double negatives (ie: NO_FOO=no vs NO_FOO=yes) I'm
OK with it.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.