Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 02:12:09 +0100 (MET) From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> Cc: ache@nagual.pp.ru, guido@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-usrbin@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/su su.1 su.c Message-ID: <199710280112.CAA00610@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Guido van Rooij's message of Mon, 27 Oct 1997 23:35:19 %2B0100 (MET) References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971028011353.2307A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> <199710272235.XAA23016@gvr.gvr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > [______ ______] wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 1997, Guido van Rooij wrote: > > > > > guido 1997/10/27 14:05:14 PST > > > > > > Modified files: > > > usr.bin/su su.1 su.c > > > Log: > > > Add -c option that allows root to specify a login_class. > > > > Why not -L as for "pw"? I think we need somehow standartize login class > > option between applications. F.e. "limits" uses -C (already occuped > > in "pw") :-( > > > > In fact I started with -C, and reverted to -c because that is what > BSD/OS uses for the same option. I know -c is used in some other > Unixen to specify a command. If more ppl feel this is more painfull > than being incompatible with BSD/OS's su, please yeel and I'll > chaneg it to -C (or -L or whatever). -c is used in *FreeBSD* to specify a command, or at least was used prior to your commit. IMO, being internally consistent and not re-using options is more important than being compatible with BSD/OS here - my vote is for using -C. Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710280112.CAA00610>