Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 20:48:44 +0100 From: Christian Brueffer <chris@unixpages.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: danger@FreeBSD.org, doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r186737 - head/sbin/geom/class/virstor Message-ID: <20090104194844.GB1257@haakonia.hitnet.RWTH-Aachen.DE> In-Reply-To: <20090105.032211.33865530.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <287359450.20090104174842@rulez.sk> <20090105.025058.119952164.hrs@allbsd.org> <1289663263.20090104185721@rulez.sk> <20090105.032211.33865530.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Yylu36WmvOXNoKYn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 03:22:11AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > Daniel Gerzo <danger@freebsd.org> wrote > in <1289663263.20090104185721@rulez.sk>: >=20 > da> Hello Hiroki, > da> > da> Sunday, January 4, 2009, 6:50:58 PM, you wrote: > da> > da> > Daniel Gerzo <danger@freebsd.org> wrote > da> > in <287359450.20090104174842@rulez.sk>: > da> > da> da>> Hello Christian, > da> da>> > da> da>> Sunday, January 4, 2009, 4:58:32 PM, you wrote: > da> da>> > da> da>> > While using .Ex is good, collapsing EXIT STATUS into DIAGNOSTI= CS is not. > da> da>> > EXIT STATUS is a standard section in our manpages and it's ort= hogonal to > da> da>> > DIAGNOSTICS. > da> da>> > da> da>> I am fine to revert this part, however I have trimmed this secti= on > da> da>> just because I didn't see it listed in the PAGE STRUCTURE DOMAIN > da> da>> section of the mdoc(7) manual page. > da> da>> > da> da>> Interestingly, it lists the DIAGNOSTICS section and explicitly > da> da>> says that .Ex macro should be used there. > da> > da> > Is using .Ex macro really correct?. When geom(1) fails the exit > da> > status will be 1, not >0. While many commands whose manual page s= ays > da> > so return 1 on an error actually (especially when it is in POSIX), > da> > the two are not the same at least. > da> > da> I thought that 1 > 0 ... (?) >=20 > I mean I am wondering if rewriting "1" with ">0" is reasonable or > not. "1>0" is always true, but "1" is not equal to ">0". >=20 > Some other manual pages have the description "1 on error.". If we > have a consensus on that this rewriting is reasonable, we should > also rewrite them in consistency. >=20 Interesting question, I have no strong opinion for either of the alternatives. I agree that we should standardize on one though. - Christian --=20 Christian Brueffer chris@unixpages.org brueffer@FreeBSD.org GPG Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D --Yylu36WmvOXNoKYn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFJYRKcbHYXjKDtmC0RAmqNAJ0RenHGXhPGpcbB8C1Da1cDkIjhrgCdFSYw 8YxxDqXyGjPB2WMYYPZMKEw= =NtDq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Yylu36WmvOXNoKYn--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090104194844.GB1257>