From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 7 22:39:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BEEB1065670; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:39:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B055A15803A; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 22:38:30 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F08C95F.6040808@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 14:38:23 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek References: <20120106141301.GE1693@garage.freebsd.pl> <4F079A76.3030306@FreeBSD.org> <20120107112538.GC1696@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <20120107112538.GC1696@garage.freebsd.pl> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Making use of set_rcvar. X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list 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: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:39:04 -0000 On 01/07/2012 03:25, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 05:05:58PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 01/06/2012 06:13, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >>> Any objections? >>> >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~pjd/patches/set_rcvar.patch >>> >>> This patch only changes scripts where set_rcvar can be used with no >>> arguments. >> >> Please don't do this. >> >> Jilles already pointed out the important reason, it adds pointless >> forks. I suggested a long time ago that we remove set_rcvar altogether >> but I got a lot of resistance to it, and never pursued it. Perhaps it's >> time to revisit that. > > It is a total mess now then and it is definiately not intuitive when > there are much more bad examples than good ones: I agree, which is why I previously proposed assigning them all directly when possible (which is in almost all cases). If no one speaks up opposing this idea in the next few days I'm still prepared to proceed. >> In regards to your concern about not having to type the name of the >> script when copying to create a new one, you can't really be serious >> about that? If so, let me introduce you to this revolutionary thing >> called "search and replace." > > Do you really expect me to comment this? Well I don't know, I thought you were being funny in your post, so I was trying to respond in kind. Sorry if the humor missed the mark. Doug -- You can observe a lot just by watching. -- Yogi Berra Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/