Date: 04 Nov 2002 10:42:03 -0800 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Cliff Sarginson <cls@raggedclown.net> Cc: FreeBSD List <questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Clarification of "eject" question Message-ID: <kpadkpqiro.dkp@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20021104103232.GA1813@raggedclown.net> References: <20021104103232.GA1813@raggedclown.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cliff Sarginson <cls@raggedclown.net> writes: > If installed it comes with a manual page, that if read scrupulously > it implies that the /dev part of the device name is not required. It implies to me that what it calls a device name HAS no /dev part and that it's not allowed. That matches program behavior, AFAIK. > The manual page unfortunately implies by it's authorship and history > that it is part of the base system. So maybe that needs to be corrected. It implies to me that it WAS part of (the FreeBSD 2.X) base system. It's CVS logs should show whether it was or not. You could add the history of its move to the ports system (the Makefile has Jan'2000). > Really "eject" needs rewriting to take the mount point of the CD > device(s) as an argument (or at least an alternative argument, so as > not to break anything). That should avoid a lot of wasted experimentation by the many people who won't believe that the program works the way the manual says it does. It would also allow some scripts which use the program to be cleaner. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?kpadkpqiro.dkp>