Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:09:35 +0100 From: Gerhard Sittig <Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Firewall config non-intuitiveness Message-ID: <20020127220935.C1494@shell.gsinet.sittig.org> In-Reply-To: <200201271757.g0RHvTF12944@midway.uchicago.edu>; from dsyphers@uchicago.edu on Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 11:57:32AM -0600 References: <20020127014848.F23259@blossom.cjclark.org> <3.0.5.32.20020127075816.01831ca0@mail.sage-american.com> <20020127.102748.70374201.imp@village.org> <200201271757.g0RHvTF12944@midway.uchicago.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 11:57 -0600, David Syphers wrote:
>
> [ ... surprise ... ] As others have pointed out this behavior is
> documented, but we must remember that a variable name itself is the most
> important and immediate documentation. And having a firewall load when
> firewall_enable is NO is complete nonsense.
So maybe the variables should be named a little longer to fully
describe their effect? Like
firewall_ruleset_script_run_enable_when_set_to_yes? I'm sorry
if I sound a little ironic, but when one is to administer a UNIX
system one should have learned to use the available docs when in
doubt. Otherwise we end up with variable names not fitting on 80
column lines while their accompanying comments occupy the next
ten lines. This would mean mirroring the manpage in the script
once more and is not really the way things usually work.
virtually yours 82D1 9B9C 01DC 4FB4 D7B4 61BE 3F49 4F77 72DE DA76
Gerhard Sittig true | mail -s "get gpg key" Gerhard.Sittig@gmx.net
--
If you don't understand or are scared by any of the above
ask your parents or an adult to help you.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020127220935.C1494>