Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:15:17 +0930 From: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: brian@awfulhak.org, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rc & rc.conf Message-ID: <19970914151517.24823@lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199709140446.VAA08907@usr08.primenet.com>; from Terry Lambert on Sun, Sep 14, 1997 at 04:46:13AM %2B0000 References: <19970914101350.06261@lemis.com> <199709140446.VAA08907@usr08.primenet.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, Sep 14, 1997 at 04:46:13AM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: >>> This is a disaster waiting to happen: >> >> I'm sorry, I must be too stupid. What's wrong with that? And how >> does your fix fix it? Since the flags and the -enable have been >> separated, it seems that we *should* insist on the exact string YES >> for the enable flags. > > 1) The logic is inverted from that of all similar code > > 2) The value "YES" means that flag values, if they should > be later desired, can't be put in the string in order > to activate the services with the requested flags, like > you can for all similar code. Yes, I'm not quite *that* stupid. We have two variables here: a -flags which is set with the flags, and an -enable which is set to either YES or NO. The original logic says "don't do it unless -enable is YES". Brian's saying "do it unless -enable is NO". I don't see an advantage in doing it this way, and I certainly don't see a disaster waiting to happen in the old way. Another thing that puzzles me is why somebody would want to disable cron. Greghome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970914151517.24823>