Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 23:16:45 +0100 (MET) From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org> Cc: perhaps@yes.no, 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: <199710282216.XAA03772@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Guido van Rooij's message of Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:02:22 %2B0100 (MET) References: <199710280112.CAA00610@bitbox.follo.net> <199710281902.UAA00981@gvr.gvr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > -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. There is a conflict in consistency - the user see this as an option to su, not the shell, and would see it as a re-use of an option. It doesn't bother me much, as I know the deal, but I believe it would bother a new/infrequent user. (This is not important to me, so if you still don't agree, just leave it at that and let the case rest.) Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710282216.XAA03772>