From owner-cvs-all Wed Apr 25 18:11:50 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from bazooka.unixfreak.org (bazooka.unixfreak.org [63.198.170.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2692737B423; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:11:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dima@unixfreak.org) Received: from spike.unixfreak.org (spike [63.198.170.139]) by bazooka.unixfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE4D3E2A; Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:11:44 -0700 (PDT) To: Matt Dillon Cc: "David Xu" , "Nik Clayton" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc In-Reply-To: <200104260051.f3Q0pbv46632@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on "Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:51:37 -0700 (PDT)" Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:11:44 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman Message-Id: <20010426011144.BFE4D3E2A@bazooka.unixfreak.org> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Matt Dillon writes: > Hmph. I don't see how it could hurt since it amounts to the > same thing that it was doing before, but why bother in the first > place? The original code was just fine. My guess is: for consistency. The documentation says to do it that way, and not following that serves to confuse some newcomers (e.g., "The docs say to do it this way, but how come /etc/rc doesn't? Is there something wrong with the way in the docs?"). This patch actually closes a docs/ PR on the subject. And as you say, it amounts to the same thing, so it shouldn't really hurt anything. Regards, Dima Dorfman dima@unixfreak.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message