Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:16:37 +0100 From: Anton Berezin <tobez@tobez.org> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New option to sysctl(8) Message-ID: <20011031001637.C99397@heechee.tobez.org> In-Reply-To: <44507.1004483059@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>; from sheldonh@starjuice.net on Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 01:04:19AM %2B0200 References: <20011029223004.B50609@heechee.tobez.org> <44507.1004483059@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 01:04:19AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2001 22:30:04 +0100, Anton Berezin wrote: > > > +This option is ignored if either > > +.Fl N > > +or > > +.Fl n > > +is specified, or a variable is being set. > > I'm not a big fan of this behaviour. Could you either > > a) make the last specified of -N, -n or -e override the others, or > > b) make these options mutually exclusive. This is not a problem as such, but I'd prefer not to do that, actually. -e does not really modify what sysctl(8) does, it only affects the form of the output, so in a way, this option is more auxiliary than -N and -n. Besides, sysctl(8) already has a precedent of silently ignoring options, namely -a in presense of a variable name. I am willing to reconsider if more people would prefer the behavior you propose. =Anton. -- | Anton Berezin | FreeBSD: The power to serve | | catpipe Systems ApS _ _ |_ | http://www.FreeBSD.org | | tobez@catpipe.net (_(_|| | tobez@FreeBSD.org | | +45 7021 0050 | Private: tobez@tobez.org | To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011031001637.C99397>