Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 23:13:02 -0800 From: Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> To: Zoran Kolic <zkolic@sbb.rs> Cc: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: nomenclature for conf files Message-ID: <CAN6yY1sxbncrOjN7X8wvkVwiuacsrAWcuQM6s2%2Bh62C=XFuMYg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121112052939.GA1309@mycenae.sbb.rs> References: <20121112051229.GA1235@mycenae.sbb.rs> <CADy1Ce6W4nfQHvHNx7YO9jEc6Aou9hjtHzdVV9xhxZ-rGzWhmQ@mail.gmail.com> <20121112052939.GA1309@mycenae.sbb.rs>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Zoran Kolic <zkolic@sbb.rs> wrote: > > > WITH_KMS=YES > > > WITH_KMS="YES" > > > WITH_KMS=yes > > > > With regard to their use in /etc/rc.conf, no, absolutely not. > > In general, from my experience, only the second one will work. > > Yep, in rc.conf only the second one. I was thinking of make.conf. > It is the place kms should be set. Loader conf might take only > "" versions also. > Thank you and best regards > A minor detail, but the line does not belong in rc.conf (a shell script), but in /etc/make.conf (a Makefile). Normally you don't use quotation marks in that case, but it really does not matter in this case as the presence of "WITH_KMS=" is the significant part. I believe that "WITH_KMS=no" and "WITH_KMS=yes" are equivalent. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1sxbncrOjN7X8wvkVwiuacsrAWcuQM6s2%2Bh62C=XFuMYg>