From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jul 7 16:36: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk [193.237.89.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09F21567B for ; Wed, 7 Jul 1999 16:35:35 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nik@nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk) Received: (from nik@localhost) by nothing-going-on.demon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.2) id AAA37913; Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:03:11 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from nik) Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1999 00:03:10 +0100 From: Nik Clayton To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: Nik Clayton , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: docs/12377: doc patch for login_cap. Message-ID: <19990708000310.A37390@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> References: <19990705235617.T71138@catkin.nothing-going-on.org> <93215.931241186@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i In-Reply-To: <93215.931241186@axl.noc.iafrica.com>; from Sheldon Hearn on Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 08:06:26AM +0200 Organization: Nik at home, where there's nothing going on Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jul 06, 1999 at 08:06:26AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 23:56:17 +0100, Nik Clayton wrote: > > I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the login_cap system. Could > > someone who is versed in it please take a look at this PR (text included) > > and let me know whether or not the suggested patch is correct. > > Quite often, we receive requests to improve documentation that are born > out of a failure to read that documentation correctly. I think this PR > might be one of those cases. Have a look at the login_cap(3) manpage, > into which I suspect the submitter may not have dug deeply enough: I have done. As far as I can tell, the submitter is saying "Yes, the information I was looking for was in the manual page, but it (specifically, that the "root" account doesn't use the "default" entry) is buried as a throw away comment at the end of a long paragraph." The patch in the PR just rewords the paragraph slightly to make this a little more obvious for the next person to come along. I've got no objection to the patch itself, as (IMHO) it does make the para read a little more clearly. If no one objects that it's actually changing the intent of the paragraph then I'll commit it soonish. N -- [intentional self-reference] can be easily accommodated using a blessed, non-self-referential dummy head-node whose own object destructor severs the links. -- Tom Christiansen in <375143b5@cs.colorado.edu> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message