Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:02:22 +0100 (MET) From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> To: perhaps@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) 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: <199710281902.UAA00981@gvr.gvr.org> In-Reply-To: <199710280112.CAA00610@bitbox.follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Oct 28, 97 02:12:09 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > > 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. > After thinking this over: There is no problem. The -c you refer to is passed to the shell. This -c is for the class. It is issued before the user you want to su to. So there is no problem here. -Guido
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710281902.UAA00981>