Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:57:17 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r216823 - head/sbin/shutdown Message-ID: <4D1E51BD.8090707@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20101231144308.GA55052@stack.nl> References: <201012301806.oBUI6VcW046731@svn.freebsd.org> <20101231144308.GA55052@stack.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/31/2010 07:43, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 06:06:31PM +0000, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: >> Author: pjd >> Date: Thu Dec 30 18:06:31 2010 >> New Revision: 216823 >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/216823 >> Log: >> For compatibility with Linux and Solaris add poweroff(8). >> It is implemented as a hard link to shutdown(8) and it is equivalent of: >> # shutdown -p now > If we go that way, then for consistency reboot(8) and halt(8) should > also be equivalent to calling shutdown -r now and shutdown -h now > respectively, unless conflicting options are given. Linux has a -f > option for what's currently reboot's and halt's default action, and > fastboot(8)/fasthalt(8) could also retain the current behaviour. > > I would be in favour of this change. I'm not sure I'd go this far. I really *LIKE* that halt/reboot is the low-level interface that shutdown -r now calls. I'm not sure that moving away from this would be a good idea. It cuts out many levels of indirection that can be useful in many instances. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D1E51BD.8090707>