From owner-freebsd-audit Tue Oct 30 15:27:31 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-audit@freebsd.org Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C6F37B401 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 15:27:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.seasidesoftware.co.za) by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15yiIs-000Box-00; Wed, 31 Oct 2001 01:28:18 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Anton Berezin Cc: audit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New option to sysctl(8) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:16:37 +0100." <20011031001637.C99397@heechee.tobez.org> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 01:28:18 +0200 Message-ID: <45442.1004484498@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 00:16:37 +0100, Anton Berezin wrote: > 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. Cool, I withdraw my request then. Actually, now thta you put it that way, I can think of at least one scenario where it's better to just ignore the option -- shell aliases, e.g. alias sysctl='sysctl -e' Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message