Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:32:01 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Confusing error messages from shell image activation Message-ID: <14898.31393.228926.763711@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <200011241948.OAA64331@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <14876.48112.785320.465213@guru.mired.org> <20001123110828.V18037@fw.wintelcom.net> <14877.65275.744127.863828@guru.mired.org> <200011241948.OAA64331@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> types: > <<On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:39:07 -0600 (CST), Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> said: > > Um - compliance with what, exactly? > IEEE Std.1003.1-1990 et seq. Since no one has bothered to close this PR with a note that this noncompliance is unacceptable, I'm assuming that no one considers it so. Further, it's not clear that FreeBSD can't stay in compliance with an appropriate note in the compliance document. There are other places where FreeBSD doesn't comply with the appropriate standard - packages vs. FHS, for instance. I claim that the benefits of no longer providing grossly inaccurate error message outweigh the relatively minor conformance loss in this case. So would someone commit the thing so that others can share those benefits? Thanks, <mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14898.31393.228926.763711>