From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Jun 19 03:02:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id DAA19862
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 03:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA19856
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 03:02:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199706191002.DAA19856@hub.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA026824090; Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:54:51 +1000
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: btw
To: dima@best.net
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:54:50 +1000 (EST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199706190826.BAA19159@burka.rdy.com> from "Dima Ruban" at Jun 19, 97 01:26:06 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In some mail from Dima Ruban, sie said:
> 
> Hey guys!
> 
> Why do we call /etc/rc.local by: (thats from /etc/rc)
> # Do traditional (but rather obsolete) rc.local file if it exists.
> [ -f /etc/rc.local ] && sh /etc/rc.local
>                        ^^^^
> and not ". /etc/rc.local"?

does rc (sh) handle errors the same way with "sh xx" and ". xx" ?