Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 15:17:15 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Alexander Botero-Lowry <alex@foxybanana.com> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of set_rcvar Message-ID: <20060606221715.GB13570@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <200606062147.k56LlW3i059772@Laptop.mine.box> References: <20060606205325.GA13570@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <200606062147.k56LlW3i059772@Laptop.mine.box>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 05:47:31PM -0400, Alexander Botero-Lowry wrote:
> One question I've always had is why FreeBSD picked to have
> ${name}_enable instead of just ${name} like on NetBSD? Was there a lot
> of debate about this, was it to make the variables less ambigious, or
> osmething else?
My understanding is that we did it for historical reasons in the base
system and in ports because they should be consistent with the base
system. Changing now would be difficult and have little or no value.
-- Brooks
--=20
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEhf7qXY6L6fI4GtQRAj67AJ46rgRhVFl+oZVf2i/7Xz31CpyEiQCgiJu2
T0S4o0w8qTyYA/hDpOyr2wc=
=bQ7g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060606221715.GB13570>