Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:40:09 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ), "Darren Pilgrim" <dmp@bitfreak.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, 'Brooks Davis' <brooks@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc group master.passwd Message-ID: <p06210257bece101be886@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <86slzvcfb0.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <001801c56ae1$15d05d90$0a2a15ac@SMILEY> <86slzvcfb0.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:04 AM +0200 6/7/05, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote:
>"Darren Pilgrim" <dmp@bitfreak.org> writes:
>> Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav <des@des.no> writes:
>> > What is the point of the underscore in _dhcp and _pflogd?
>> It's a convention used for system UIDs to prevent namespace
>> collisions with user accounts.
>
>It's not a FreeBSD convention. If the underscore serves no other
>purpose than satisfying an OpenBSD convention, it should go.
I see no reason to make our dhcp and pf gratuitously different.
It isn't like it *hurts* anything to use the leading underscores
in names. Besides, didn't we already go through this with the
original import of 'pf', and at the time the consensus seemed
to be to go with the _pflogd.
See revision 1.37 of src/etc/master.passwd :
[- Wed Jun 23 01:32:28 2004 UTC (11 months, 2 weeks ago) by mlaier -]
Add "privsep" user/group _pflogd:_pflogd (64:64) to make pflogd(8)
work again. This user/group is not required for install* targets,
hence do not add them to CHECK_UIDS/CHECK_GIDS in Makefile.inc1
(no need to annoy people).
Discussed-on: -current
The parts I'm interested in are "11 months 2 weeks ago", and
"Discussed-on: -current". I don't feel as strongly about _dhcp, but I
think it would be pretty silly to change _pflogd at this time. Nothing
breaks with that '_' being there. What if they wanted to call it "odhcp",
would we object to the letter "o"? What do we care if the first letter
is an underscore? What is so frightening about '_' that we *must* not
use it? This seems like a reasonable convention to me, whether or not
we happened to start it.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06210257bece101be886>