From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Sep 13 23:12:35 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id XAA24139
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp20.portal.net.au [202.12.71.120])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA24129
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 23:12:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.smith.net.au [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA00821;
	Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:39:53 +0930 (CST)
Message-Id: <199709140609.PAA00821@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, brian@awfulhak.org,
        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: rc & rc.conf 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:15:17 +0930."
             <19970914151517.24823@lemis.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 15:39:51 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> Yes, I'm not quite *that* stupid.  We have two variables here: a
> -flags which is set with the flags, and an -enable which is set to
> either YES or NO.  The original logic says "don't do it unless -enable
> is YES".  Brian's saying "do it unless -enable is NO".  I don't see an
> advantage in doing it this way, and I certainly don't see a disaster
> waiting to happen in the old way.

The advantages are combined; consistency with all of the other similar 
options, and by using "not NO", the _enable and _flags variables may
subsequently be combined.

> Another thing that puzzles me is why somebody would want to disable
> cron.

Footprint.

mike